Can a municipal solicitor defend a criminal defendant when the alleged offense occurred in his own municipality and was investigated by its police?

Plain-English summary

The Committee was asked whether a municipal solicitor could represent a defendant in a criminal action where the criminal offense allegedly occurred within the municipality he served as solicitor, the arrest was made by that municipality's police, and the matter arose from an investigation by the County Prosecutor's office and the State Police.

The Committee's opinion was that such representation would be improper. It did not restate the full analysis, instead directing the reader to the principles governing the attorney's conduct in its Opinions 62 and 63, 87 N.J.L.J. 610 (1964), and Opinion 84, 88 N.J.L.J. 629 (1966).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in December 1968, 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 the Canons of Professional Ethics as developed in the Committee's earlier opinions on municipal solicitors defending local criminal matters. The conflict is now analyzed under RPC 1.7 and, for government lawyers, RPC 1.11. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a municipal solicitor take criminal defense cases arising in his own town?

A: No, at least not where the offense occurred in the municipality he serves and its police made the arrest; the Committee held that representation improper.

Q: Where is the Committee's reasoning found?

A: The opinion points to the principles in its Opinions 62, 63, and 84 rather than repeating the analysis.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies the Committee's settled line that a lawyer holding a municipal office may not take on private matters that put him in conflict with the municipality or its law-enforcement function. The reasoning is set out in the cited Opinions 62, 63, and 84. In current New Jersey terms, the question is a concurrent conflict under RPC 1.7, with RPC 1.11 governing government lawyers' obligations.

Citations and references

Other opinions cited:

• NJ ACPE Opinions 62 and 63, 87 N.J.L.J. 610 (1964)
• NJ ACPE Opinion 84, 88 N.J.L.J. 629 (1966)

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 140: Municipal Prosecutor Defending a Police Officer
• NJ ACPE Op. 141: Health Board Attorney Conflicts

Source

• Landing page: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp139-1.html

Original opinion text

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

91 N.J.L.J. 805
December 12, 1968

OPINION 139

Conflict of Interest Municipal Solicitor Defense in Local Crime

The following inquiry has been received by the Committee:

May a municipal solicitor represent a defendant in a criminal action where the criminal offense allegedly occurred within the municipality of which he is municipal solicitor and the arrest made by that municipality's police based on an investigation made by the County Prosecutor's office and the State Police?

This Committee's opinion is that such representation would be improper. See Opinions 62 and 63, 87 N.J.L.J. 610 (1964), and Opinion 84, 88 N.J.L.J. 629 (1966) for the principles governing the conduct of this attorney.