While the criminal charges against George Norcross have taken center stage, the legal community should be closely following the allegations against his personal attorney, William M. Tambussi.
For those of us who have worked on matters with Bill as a colleague at the bar, the idea that he is accused of being a member of the “Norcross (criminal) Enterprise” and is facing charges of first-degree racketeering for legal advice he provided is over-the-top outrageous and an application of a law that was never intended to be used this way.
Criminal Charges against Norcross Attorney
Tambussi, a partner at the law firm of Brown and Connery, has served as George Norcross’s personal attorney for decades. As detailed in the indictment, he also served as counsel to the Camden County Democratic Committee from 1989 to the present. Tambussi has also worked as outside counsel to the City of Camden, the Camden Redevelopment Agency (CRA), Cooper Health, and Conner Strong.
As shown in greater detail here, prosecutors contend that George Norcross and his co-defendants obtained tax credits and other property rights on the Camden Waterfront through a series of criminal acts. The indictment further alleges that the Norcross Enterprise improperly influenced government officials and redevelopment legislation to further the enterprise’s interests.
The specific allegations against Tambussi claim he was an “active participant in the Norcross (criminal) Enterprise’s plot to use the City of Camden’s government to bring a condemnation action” against a rival developer.
Tambussi’s Motion to Dismiss Raises Legitimate Concerns
On September 26, 2024, Tambussi filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that if it is allowed to stand, “no New Jersey attorney would be safe from prosecution.” Among other arguments, Tambussi and his attorneys contend that the indictment criminalizes the practice of law and runs afoul of due process guarantees and the separation of powers.
In his motion to dismiss, Tambussi’s attorneys emphasize that he is “barely mentioned” in the 111-page indictment. The motion further notes that the purported criminal conduct, including researching a declaratory judgment action and filing motions in limine, all fall within his capacity as a lawyer.
“When he is mentioned, his ‘criminal’ acts are legal research for a contemplated declaratory judgment action and arguing a pretrial motion before the Superior Court,” they write. “If allowed to stand, the potential impact of the AG’s indictment would be as sweeping as it is chilling on the profession.”
In seeking to dismiss the indictment, Tambussi’s attorneys emphasize that attorneys have routinely been regulated exclusively by the judiciary. They also cite New Jersey case law holding that ethical violations do not provide sufficient constitutional notice that such misconduct could lead to criminal liability.
Accordingly, applying criminal statutes to an attorney’s professional work when there is no alleged violation of ethical or professional norms would be “a novel construction” of the New Jersey Criminal Code that violates due process. “No advanced notice exists that the routine practice of law could ever result in criminal liability, rather than merely subjecting an attorney to potential sanction or disciplinary action,” the motion states.
Despite allegations of a conflict of interest, they further note that Tambussi’s representation of the CRA and the City of Camden did not violate any Rule of Professional Conduct and was in accordance with the New Jersey Court Rules. “Tambussi’s otherwise lawful conduct is being criminalized solely because he is George Norcross’s lawyer,” the motion argues. Additionally, Tambussi is the lone attorney who was charged with a crime for working on the declaratory judgment action and motions in limine.
As an alternative ground for dismissing the indictment, Tambussi’s attorneys contend that the Office of Public Integrity and Accountability (OPIA) made material misrepresentations to the grand jury and withheld exculpatory evidence in order to secure its indictment. Tambussi and his attorneys allege that the AG’s grand jury presentation was “carefully curated” to make it appear that Tambussi had criminal intent when the AG knew he had none, writing:
The AG made it look like Tambussi was directing a public agency (the CRA) to take obviously incorrect legal positions to benefit George Norcross. But the AG knew he was not. Tambussi’s law firm was researching a legal question at the direction of a client for the benefit of the client. The AG made it look like Tambussi was filing frivolous and out-of-time motions to protect George Norcross at the expense of his clients. But the AG knew he was not. Tambussi was filing timely and necessary motions in limine to benefit his clients.
Key Takeaway
Even 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. Afterall, there is no allegation that he violated any Rules of Professional Conduct or other ethical standards. Should the court allow the indictment to stand, New Jersey lawyers could have reasonable concerns about overzealous prosecutors seeking to target attorneys who represent clients that the prosecutors don’t like.
Read Donald Scarinci’s columns on the Norcross indictments: Part One | Part Two