Can a lawyer who is counsel to one city challenge a neighboring city's tax assessments when his law partner is the mayor of that other city?

Plain-English summary

Partners A and B practiced law together; A was first legal assistant for the City of X, and B was mayor of the City of Y, both in the same county. After a county-ordered revaluation, the county tax board set assessments at 100 percent of true value for both cities. City X claimed Y's assessments were actually below 100 percent and directed A to object to the equalization table and appeal to have Y's assessments reduced. A acknowledged an actual and apparent conflict between the cities but argued that his partner the mayor had nothing to do with Y's assessments or revaluation, and that A's experience made him particularly qualified to handle the technical issues.

The Committee concluded that neither A nor B should participate in the dispute. Each partner owed undivided and absolute fidelity to his respective city, and the conflict between the cities directly affected each city's taxpayers. For members of the same partnership, sharing earnings, to owe divergent duties of fidelity to directly conflicting legal positions is improper; the Committee has repeatedly held that not only actual conflicts but the appearance of conflict must be avoided, a principle that becomes paramount when the rights of the general public are involved. It added that the partnership's even contemplating sharing fees from the anticipated litigation would be a just basis for public uproar.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1972, before New Jersey's adoption of the 2004 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct, and predates the 1984 replacement of the Disciplinary Rules by the RPCs. The conflict and imputation principles it applied 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Could the partner-mayor's lack of involvement in the assessments cure the conflict?

A: No. The Committee held each partner owed undivided fidelity to his own city, and partners sharing earnings cannot take directly conflicting public positions, regardless of the mayor's role in the assessments.

Q: Did the conflict bind both partners or just the one bringing the appeal?

A: Both. The Committee concluded neither A nor B should in any way participate in the dispute between the two cities.

Q: Why did the public character of the dispute matter?

A: Because the conflict affected each city's taxpayers, the Committee said the duty to avoid even the appearance of conflict becomes paramount when the rights of the general public are involved.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the conflict and firm-imputation principles to partners serving two adverse public bodies. In current New Jersey terms the analysis falls under RPC 1.7 and RPC 1.10.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Conflict and imputation principles as in effect 1972; now MR 1.7 / 1.10 and NJ RPC 1.7 / 1.10

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 255: A Board of Health Lawyer Who Is Suing the Town
• NJ ACPE Op. 297: Development-Corporation Counsel Partnered With a Municipal Prosecutor
• NJ ACPE Op. 262: A County School Attorney Representing a Civil Service Council

Source

• Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp236-1.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.

95 N.J.L.J. 389, April 27, 1972

OPINION 236

Conflict of Interest Partners Serving Conflicting Municipalities

The Committee has received the following inquiry.

A and B are partners in the practice of law in this State. A is the first legal assistant for the City of X and B is the mayor under a council-manager form of government of the City of Y. Both cities are within the same county.

By order of the county board of taxation, both cities were directed to conduct complete reevaluations of all rateables within their municipalities. Both cities complied using independent reevaluation firms. The reevaluations have been submitted to the county board of taxation for use in the tax year 1972. The county tax board, in its preliminary equalization table, has established assessments at 100 percent of true value for both X and Y.

The City of X asserts that this is an error and that the City of Y's assessments are less than 100 percent of true value and has directed A to object to the preliminary equalization table and take whatever steps by way of appeal are necessary to have the City of Y's assessments reduced to a percentage less than 100 percent of true.

The inquirer readily admits that there is an actual and apparent conflict between the two cities but points out that his partner, the mayor, has nothing to do with the assessments for the City of Y, nor did he have anything to do with the reevaluation. He further points out that because of his background and experience as legal assistant for the City of X, he is particularly qualified to present the technical phases involved in the adjustment of the county equalization table.

The question presented is whether A, as attorney for the City of X, may challenge the assessments of the City of Y of which his law partner is mayor?

It is obvious that these two law partners, one as mayor of the City of Y and the other as attorney for the City of X, each owes undivided and absolute fidelity to his respective city. It is also obvious that the conflict between the two cities directly affects the taxpayers of the respective cities. For the members of the same partnership sharing earnings to owe divergent duties of fidelity to the directly conflicting legal positions of their principles is improper. This Committee has held on many occasions that not only actual conflicts must be avoided, but the appearance of conflict is equally to be avoided. This simple principle becomes paramount when the rights of the general public are involved. For the partnership of A and B to even contemplate sharing fees derived from the anticipated litigation would undoubtedly be a just basis for a public uproar.

It is the conclusion of this Committee that neither A nor B should in any way participate in the dispute between the City of X and the City of Y arising out of a challenge to assessments.