Can a lawyer who shares an office with the municipal attorney represent a developer building and selling homes in that municipality?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry asked whether it is proper for an attorney who is an office associate of a municipal attorney to represent a developer about to subdivide, build, and sell one- and two-family homes in the municipality that employs the municipal attorney. All of the prior subdivision and variance proceedings had been handled by the attorney for the corporation that sold the tract to the developer, and the inquirer had no part in them.

The Committee relied on Opinion 157, where it held that a part-time municipal attorney may not continue to represent a builder of homes in the municipality that employs him, together with Opinions 90, 85, and 69. It held that the reasoning of Opinion 157 applies with equal force where the attorney is an office associate of the municipal attorney, citing Opinion 74. Accordingly, the Committee concluded that the inquirer should not represent the builder in the municipality while he maintains an office association with the attorney for the municipality.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in November 1969, before New Jersey's September 13, 1971 adoption of the Disciplinary Rules (Code of Professional Responsibility), so the Committee was applying the Canons of Professional Ethics and its own prior opinions. It also predates the 1984 Rules of Professional Conduct and all later revisions. The conflict principles it applied, including the attribution of one office member's conflict to his associates, are now treated under RPC 1.7 and RPC 1.10. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Does the municipal attorney's conflict extend to lawyers who merely share his office?

A: Yes. The Committee held that the bar on the municipal attorney representing a developer in his own municipality applies with equal force to an office associate of the municipal attorney.

Q: Did it matter that the associate had no role in the developer's earlier subdivision or variance proceedings?

A: No. The Committee still concluded the associate should not represent the builder in the municipality while maintaining an office association with the municipal attorney.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Canon 6 of the Canons of Professional Ethics and the Committee's government-conflict line (Opinions 157, 90, 85, 69, and 74), extending the municipal attorney's disqualification to his office associate. In current New Jersey terms the analysis falls under RPC 1.7, with imputation among associated lawyers under RPC 1.10.

Citations and references

Other opinions cited:

• NJ ACPE Opinion 157, 92 N.J.L.J. 593 (1969)
• NJ ACPE Opinion 90, 89 N.J.L.J. 241 (1966)
• NJ ACPE Opinion 85, 88 N.J.L.J. 631 (1965)
• NJ ACPE Opinion 69, 88 N.J.L.J. 97 (1965)
• NJ ACPE Opinion 74, 88 N.J.L.J. 357 (1965)

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 157: An Assistant Municipal Attorney Representing a Builder
• NJ ACPE Op. 167: A Municipal Judge Representing Land Developers
• NJ ACPE Op. 401: Municipal Solicitor Representing Developers and Land Purchasers

Source

• Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp161-1.html
• Issuing authority: New Jersey Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, via the NJ Courts Supreme Court Committees page

Original opinion text

Reproduced from a full-text mirror of the official opinion for research purposes. The linked official source controls.

92 N.J.L.J. 726, November 6, 1969

OPINION 161

Conflict of Interest Associate of Municipal Attorney Representing Developer

This inquiry questions whether it is proper for an attorney who is an office associate of a municipal attorney to represent a developer who is about to subdivide, erect and sell one and two-family homes in the municipality which employs the municipal attorney. All the legal proceedings for subdivision, variances, etc., were attended to previously by the attorney representing the corporation which sold the tract to the developer, and the inquirer had no part in them.

We considered a similar inquiry in New Jersey Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, Opinion 157, 92 N.J.L.J. 593 (1969), where we held that a part time municipal attorney may not continue to represent a builder of homes in the municipality which employs the attorney. See also New Jersey Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, Opinions 90, 89 N.J.L.J. 241 (1966), 85, 88 N.J.L.J. 631 (1965), and 69, 88 N.J.L.J. 97 (1965).

What we decided in the above opinion applies with equal force here where the attorney concerned is an office associate of the municipal attorney. New Jersey Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, Opinion 74, 88 N.J.L.J. 357 (1965).

Accordingly, this inquirer should not represent the builder in the municipality while he maintains an office association with the attorney for the municipality.