Does an attorney's service on an unofficial municipal charter-revision advisory committee disqualify him from representing private clients before that city's court and agencies?

Plain-English summary

A city's governing body asked the mayor to appoint an advisory committee to make a charter-revision study, and the mayor invited certain persons to serve, including three former mayors, one of whom was an attorney. The committee would have no official status, no specific statutory authority, and was not created by ordinance. The question was whether service on the committee would involve a conflict of interest under Canon 6 so as to disqualify the attorney from representing private litigants before the city's municipal court and municipal boards and agencies.

The Committee found the facts very similar to its Opinion 28, where a mayor proposed to appoint a committee of business and professional men primarily to attract new small industries to the community. There, observing that a lawyer is especially equipped to serve on public bodies and furnish the public the benefit of his experience, skill, and training, the Committee had held there was no apparent conflict between the work of the proposed unofficial advisory body and the legal matters affecting the community.

The Committee reached the same conclusion here: service of an attorney on the proposed advisory committee to make a charter-revision study is in the public interest, does not entail a conflict of interest, and will not disqualify the attorney from representing private litigants before the city's municipal court or its boards and agencies.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in January 1967, before New Jersey's September 13, 1971 adoption of the Disciplinary Rules (Code of Professional Responsibility), and well before the 1984 Rules of Professional Conduct and all later revisions. It applied Canon 6 (conflicting interests) as developed in the Committee's Opinion 28. The subject is now treated under RPC 1.7 (concurrent conflicts of interest). Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Does serving on the charter committee create a conflict of interest?

A: No. The Committee held that service on the unofficial advisory committee, which had no official status or statutory authority, did not entail a conflict of interest.

Q: Would it bar the attorney from appearing before city agencies for private clients?

A: No. The Committee said service on the committee would not disqualify the attorney from representing private litigants before the city's municipal court or its boards and agencies.

Q: What made this different from the disqualifying municipal-attorney situations?

A: The committee was unofficial, had no statutory authority, and was not created by ordinance; the Committee treated such public-spirited advisory service, following its Opinion 28, as in the public interest rather than a conflicting official role.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Canon 6 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, distinguishing an unofficial, non-statutory advisory committee from the official municipal roles the Committee had treated as disqualifying. In current New Jersey terms, the conflict analysis maps to RPC 1.7 (concurrent conflicts of interest).

Citations and references

Other authorities:

• Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 6 (conflicting interests)

Other opinions cited:

• NJ ACPE Opinion 28, 87 N.J.L.J. 106 (1964): no conflict in serving on an unofficial advisory committee

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 96: Attorney on a Municipal Reassessment Committee
• NJ ACPE Op. 117: Borough Attorney Advising the Planning Board

Source

• Landing page: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp102-1.html

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

90 N.J.L.J. 1
January 5, 1967

OPINION 102

Municipal Charter Committee, Membership

The governing body of a city has requested the mayor to appoint an advisory committee to make a charter revision study. The mayor has invited certain persons to serve on this committee including three former mayors, one of whom is an attorney. The committee will have no official status, will not have any specific statutory authority, and is not being created by ordinance. The question presented is whether service on the committee will involve a conflict of interest (see Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 6) so as to debar the attorney from representing private litigants before the city's municipal court and municipal boards and agencies.

The facts are very similar to those that were involved in this Committee's Opinion 28, 87 N.J.L.J. 106 (1964). There it was proposed that the mayor of a municipality appoint a committee of business and professional men "primarily for the purpose of attracting new small industries to the community." Saying that a lawyer was "especially equipped to serve on public bodies and to furnish to the public the benefit of his experience, skill and training," this Committee there held that there was no apparent conflict between the work of the proposed "unofficial advisory body" and the legal matters affecting the community. So here. Service of an attorney on the proposed advisory committee to make a charter revision study is in the public interest, does not entail a conflict of interest, and will not disqualify the attorney from representing private litigants before the city's municipal court or its boards and agencies.