Does a U.S. Supreme Court decision on the unauthorized practice of law change the ethics rules for a lawyer employed by a manufacturers' association to represent its members?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry pointed the Committee to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United Mine Workers v. Illinois Bar Association, 389 U.S. 217 (1967), and asked about its effect on the Committee's Opinion 114 (rendered July 20, 1967, 90 N.J.L.J. 480). The inquiry suggested that the holding in United Mine Workers was contrary to the views the Committee had previously expressed, and asked whether the Committee's view on the questions raised in Opinion 114 would be the same.

The Committee declined to change Opinion 114. It explained that the question before the Supreme Court in United Mine Workers concerned the unauthorized practice of law, while the question decided in Opinion 114 concerned the ethics of an attorney employed by a manufacturers' association. Because the two cases addressed different questions, the Committee found no reason to change its holding in Opinion 114.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in January 1969, 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 is a brief reaffirmance of Opinion 114 and turns on the distinction between the unauthorized practice of law and the ethics of a lawyer employed by an organization to serve its members, subjects now treated under RPC 5.5 and RPC 5.4 respectively. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did United Mine Workers v. Illinois Bar Association overrule the Committee's Opinion 114?

A: No. The Committee held that the Supreme Court case decided an unauthorized-practice question, not the ethics question Opinion 114 had decided, so it left Opinion 114 in place.

Q: What was the Committee's reasoning for distinguishing the two?

A: It treated the unauthorized practice of law and the ethics of an association-employed attorney as separate questions, and concluded the Supreme Court's UPL holding did not reach the ethics issue Opinion 114 resolved.

Background and rules framework

The opinion distinguishes two bodies of law that remain distinct in current practice: the unauthorized practice of law, now addressed by RPC 5.5, and a lawyer's professional independence and obligations when employed by an organization to serve its members, addressed by RPC 5.4 and the rules on organizational and group representation. Because the underlying holding rests in Opinion 114, the substance of the ethics analysis is found there.

Citations and references

Cases:

• United Mine Workers v. Illinois Bar Association, 389 U.S. 217, 19 L. Ed. 2d 426 (1967), unauthorized practice of law

Other opinions cited:

• NJ ACPE Opinion 114, 90 N.J.L.J. 480 (July 20, 1967): ethics of an attorney employed by a manufacturers' association

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 152: Partnership With Foreign Attorneys

Source

• Landing page: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp143-1.html

Original opinion text

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

92 N.J.L.J. 53
January 23, 1969

OPINION 143

Manufacturers' Association Attorney Representing Members

Our attention is called, in this inquiry, to the opinion of the United States Supreme Court in United Mine Workers v. Illinois Bar Association, 389 U.S. 217, 19 L. Ed. 2d 426 (1967) and its effect upon our Opinion 114 rendered on July 20, 1967, 90 N.J.L.J. 480.

The inquiry before us, in essence, asks if our view on the questions raised in Opinion 114 would be the same, and suggests that the holding in the United Mine Workers case is contrary to the views we previously expressed.

The question before the United States Supreme Court in the United Mine Workers case concerned the unauthorized practice of law. The question decided in our Opinion 114 concerned the ethics of an attorney employed by a manufacturers' association. We, therefore, find no reason to change our holding in Opinion 114.