While the accusations against George Norcross are at the forefront, the legal community needs to keep a close eye on the allegations against his personal attorney, William M. Tambussi.

For those of us who have worked on issues with Bill as colleagues at the bar, the idea that he is accused of being a member of the “Norcross (criminal) Enterprise” and is facing first degree racketeering charges for legal advice provided is outrageous in the extreme and is an application of a law that was never intended to be used in this way .

Criminal Charges Against Norcross Lawyer

Tambussi, a partner at the law firm Brown and Connery, has served as George Norcross’ personal attorney for decades. He also served as an attorney for the Camden County Democratic Committee from 1989 to the present, as detailed in the indictment. Tambussi has also worked as an outside consultant for the City of Camden, Camden Redevelopment Agency (CRA), Cooper Health, and Conner Strong.

As shown in more detail HereProsecutors allege George Norcross and other defendants obtained tax credits and other property rights in Camden Beach through a series of criminal acts. The indictment also alleges that Norcross Enterprise improperly influenced government officials and redevelopment legislation to advance the company’s interests.

The specific allegations against Tambussi allege that he was “an active participant in Norcross (criminal) Enterprise’s plan to use the City of Camden government to file condemnation proceedings against a rival developer.”

Tambussi’s Impeachment Motion Raises Legitimate Concerns

On September 26, 2024, Tambussi filed a lawsuit. motion to dismiss The indictment alleges that, if validated, “no New Jersey attorney would be safe from prosecution.” Tambussi and his lawyers argue, among other claims, that the indictment criminalizes the application of law and runs afoul of due process guarantees and separation of powers.

In their motion to dismiss, Tambussi’s lawyers emphasize that there is “very little mention” of him in the 111-page indictment. The motion also specifies the alleged criminal conduct, including investigating and requesting a declaratory judgment action. in limeall within his capacity as a lawyer.

“When he is cited, his ‘criminal’ actions amount to conducting legal research for a planned declaratory judgment case and defending a pretrial motion before the Supreme Court,” they write. “If allowed to stand, the potential impact of the AG’s indictment on the profession will be as far-reaching as it is chilling.”

Tambussi’s lawyers, who want to dismiss the indictment, emphasize that lawyers are routinely regulated only by the judiciary. They also cite New Jersey case law that states that ethics violations do not provide sufficient constitutional warning that such misconduct could lead to criminal liability.

Accordingly, the application of criminal statutes to an attorney’s professional work in the absence of an alleged violation of ethical or professional norms would constitute a “new construction” of the New Jersey Criminal Code that violates due process. “There is no prior notice that the routine application of law may result in criminal liability, rather than merely subjecting an attorney to possible sanction or disciplinary action,” the motion states.

They state that despite allegations of conflict of interest, Tambussi’s representation of the CRA and the City of Camden did not violate any Rules of Professional Conduct and was in compliance with the New Jersey Rules of Court. “Tambussi’s otherwise legal conduct is criminalized solely because he is George Norcross’s lawyer,” the motion states. Additionally, Tambussi is the only attorney charged with a crime for working on declaratory proceedings and motions. in lime.

As an alternative basis for dismissing the indictment, Tambussi’s attorneys argue that the Public Integrity and Accountability Office (OPIA) made material misrepresentations to the grand jury and withheld exculpatory evidence to secure the indictment. Tambussi and his attorneys argue that the AG’s grand jury presentation was “carefully edited” to show that Tambussi had criminal intent even though Tambussi knew he did not have criminal intent, writing:

The AG portrayed Tambussi as directing a public agency (CRA) to take clearly incorrect legal positions to benefit George Norcross. But the AG knew he wasn’t like that. Tambussi’s law firm was investigating a legal question at the client’s direction, in the client’s best interest. The AG gave the impression that Tambussi made frivolous and out-of-time demands to protect George Norcross to the detriment of his clients. But the AG knew he wasn’t like that. Tambussi was making timely and necessary applications for the benefit of his clients.

Key Takeaway

Equal if Tambussi had a conflict of interest in representing the CRA and Norcross; There is little evidence at this point that his actions were criminal. Ultimately, there is no allegation that he violated any Code of Professional Conduct or other ethical standards. If the court allows the indictment to stand, New Jersey lawyers may have reasonable concerns that overzealous prosecutors are trying to target attorneys who represent clients that prosecutors dislike.

Read Donald Scarinci’s writings about the Norcross accusations: Part One | Part Two