In State v. Bellucci, 81 N.J. 531, 538, 410 A.2d 666 (1980), an attorney who had represented the defendant in his prosecution for gambling offenses previously had represented two codefendants in the same case prior to their pleading guilty. In addition, the attorney's law partner had represented yet another codefendant in the same action and continued to represent him at a joint trial. Regarding the prior representation, the Supreme Court found clear evidence that the attorney's obligations to preserve the confidences and secrets of his prior clients had the strong potential to affect his representation. Id. at 540-41, 410 A.2d 666. The Court viewed the conflict of interest as substantial, creating a great likelihood of prejudice, thus rendering the attorney's representation of Bellucci constitutionally defective. Id. at 539-41, 410 A.2d 666. The Court also found a conflict in the attorney's representation of Bellucci at the same trial in which his law partner had represented a codefendant. Id. at 541-43, 410 A.2d 666. The Court held that such joint representation by private law partners created a per se conflict such that actual prejudice need not be shown. Ibid. Thus, whether the joint representation had occurred through a single attorney or by associated attorneys, "once a potential conflict exists, prejudice will be presumed in the absence of waiver." Id. at 543, 410 A.2d 666. The Court added, "in no event is waiver to be found from a silent record." Id. at 544, 410 A.2d 666. The Court found that dual representation of defendants by partners presented a per se conflict because firm members typically have access to, and share, confidential information. Ibid. The second factor relates to whether, and to what extent, the attorneys share an economic interest. In Bellucci, the law firm had an equal financial incentive to retain the defendants where it disserved its clients' interests whether or not the defendants were represented by a single partner or by separate partners, thus creating per se conflict. The third factor concerns whether, and to what extent, public confidence in the integrity of the law profession might be compromised or eroded by permitting the case to proceed notwithstanding the potential for mischief. State v. Bellucci, 81 N.J. at 541-42, 410 A.2d 666.