A New Jersey appeals court on Dec. 12 ruled that a lawyer must answer to a grand jury about his advice to the founders of a social club that turned out to be an illegal gambling hall.
In a case of first impression in the state, the Appellate Division held that a judge’s reliance on a prosecutor’s ex parte certification to sustain a grand jury subpoena, without sharing the document with the recipient, did not render the subpoena invalid.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
