Can a lawyer who regularly defends people accused of crime also serve as attorney for organizations of law enforcement officials?

Plain-English summary

The Supreme Court directed the Committee to consider whether an attorney regularly engaged in the defense of those accused of criminal acts may also serve as attorney for organizations of law enforcement officials, and a second, narrower question about defense counsel for those generally associated with organized or syndicated crime serving the same organizations. The Court invited members of the bar to submit memoranda, and several were received and considered.

The Committee concluded that the first question should be answered in the negative: a lawyer regularly engaged in the defense of those accused of crime may not also serve as attorney for organizations of law enforcement officials. Having reached that conclusion, the Committee found it unnecessary to decide the second question, since its answer was encompassed in the conclusions on the first.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in February 1971, 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. It also predates the 1984 Rules of Professional Conduct and all later revisions. The conflicting-interests principle it applied is now treated under RPC 1.7. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can a criminal defense lawyer also be counsel to a police officers' organization?

A: No. The Committee answered that question in the negative.

Q: Did the Committee decide the organized-crime version of the question?

A: No. It found it unnecessary to decide the second question, because the answer was encompassed in its conclusions on the first.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the conflicting-interests principle of the Canons of Professional Ethics to a lawyer who both defends the criminally accused and represents organizations of law enforcement officials. In current New Jersey terms the analysis falls under RPC 1.7. (The mirror's copy of this opinion states the Committee's conclusion but does not include its full supporting analysis; the linked source controls.)

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canons of Professional Ethics (conflicting interests), as in effect 1971; now MR 1.7 and NJ RPC 1.7

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 207: A Former Assistant Prosecutor Defending the Indicted
• NJ ACPE Op. 239: Municipal Prosecutor in the Public Defender Pool

Source

• Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp196-1.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. The mirror's copy states the Committee's conclusion but does not include its full supporting analysis.

94 N.J.L.J. 65, February 4, 1971

OPINION 196

Conflict of Interest Attorney Representing Law Enforcement Agency and Many Accused of Crime

The Supreme Court has directed this Committee to consider and report to it on the following questions:

1. May an attorney regularly engaged in the defense of those accused of criminal acts also serve as attorney for organizations of law enforcement officials?

2. May an attorney regularly engaged in defense of those accused of criminal acts generally associated with organized or syndicated crime also serve as attorney for organizations of law enforcement officials?

In order to aid the Committee in considering these problems, the Supreme Court requested any member of the bar desiring to comment on them to submit a written memorandum to the Committee. Several such memoranda were received by the attorneys whose representation of the law enforcement agency is involved, and all were considered in arriving at its conclusions.

Since the Committee has arrived at the decision that question 1 should be answered in the negative, we think it unnecessary to make any decision regarding question 2, as the answer to that is encompassed in our conclusions as to the first query.