If a lawyer's son becomes a full-time assistant prosecutor and they dissolve their partnership, can the father keep practicing criminal law in that county?

Plain-English summary

An attorney who had dissolved a partnership with his son when the son became a full-time assistant prosecutor, one of fourteen assistant prosecutors, asked whether he, the father, could continue to practice criminal law in that county.

The Committee had addressed the same problem in its Opinion 191, where it held that a former partner who is a father or brother of a full-time prosecutor should not continue to practice criminal law in the county in which the former partner has become prosecutor. Here the Committee found no distinction compelling a contrary result: although the former partner was only one of fourteen assistant prosecutors and lacked a prosecutor's supervisory duties, the policy behind Opinion 191 applies with equal force where the assistant prosecutor is the former partner of his parent or siblings. The father therefore should not continue to practice criminal law in the county.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in March 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 and its own prior opinions. It also predates the 1984 Rules of Professional Conduct and all later revisions. The prosecutor-relationship and imputed-conflict principles it applied are now treated under RPC 1.11 and 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 the parent of an assistant prosecutor practice criminal defense in the same county?

A: No. The Committee held the father and former partner of a full-time assistant prosecutor should not continue to practice criminal law in that county.

Q: Does it matter that the son is only one of many assistant prosecutors?

A: No. The Committee saw no distinction; that the son was one of fourteen assistant prosecutors without supervisory duties did not compel a contrary opinion.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the Committee's prosecutor-relationship line, drawn from Opinion 191, barring a close relative and former partner of a prosecutor from practicing criminal law in the same county. In current New Jersey terms the analysis falls under RPC 1.11 and RPC 1.7.

Citations and references

Other opinions cited:

• NJ ACPE Opinion 191, 94 N.J.L.J. 33 (1971)

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 207: Former Assistant Prosecutor Defending the Indicted
• NJ ACPE Op. 267: Single Practitioner Associated With a Prosecutor's Former Firm
• NJ ACPE Op. 276: Former Assistant Prosecutor Defending One Investigated Before Resignation

Source

• Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp201-1.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.

94 N.J.L.J. 225, March 25, 1971

OPINION 201

Conflict of Interest Father and Former Partner of Assistant Prosecutor

In this inquiry, an attorney who dissolved a partnership with his son when the son became a full-time assistant prosecutor (one of fourteen assistant prosecutors) has asked whether he, the father, may continue to practice criminal law in that county.

The same problem was posed to this Committee by the inquiry in our Opinion 191, 94 N.J.L.J. 33 (1971). There we held that a former partner, who was a father or brother, of a full-time prosecutor, should not continue to practice criminal law in the county in which such former partner has become prosecutor. In this inquiry the former partner is but one of fourteen assistant prosecutors and he lacks the supervisory duties of a prosecutor. We see no distinction compelling a contrary opinion. The policy behind our decision in Opinion 191 applies with equal force where the assistant prosecutor is the former partner of his parent or siblings.