Can a law firm represent an ex-wife on a post-divorce motion when one of its partners once worked at the opposing firm, and the ex-wife once worked there as a legal secretary?

Short answer Yes. The opinion found no conflict for either firm, because the post-divorce motion was a new matter unrelated to the prior representations of the husband or wife and involved only facts arising after the divorce judgment.

Bar

NJACPE

Issued

September 22, 1977

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1977. Ask about yours and see what the current New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.

How much weight this carries: The Supreme Court of New Jersey has held that the Advisory Committee's published opinions are binding on the ethics committees that decide grievances (R. 1:19-6), and that a lawyer who does not follow one "does so at his peril" (Higgins v. Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, 73 N.J. 123 (1977)). The Court can modify or vacate an opinion. Source.

About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

The inquiry asked whether a law firm could properly represent a wife on a post-divorce motion where a partner in the firm had previously been an associate of the opposing firm, the firm representing the wife's former husband. While at the opposing firm, that partner had served as a nominal officer of two corporations formed by the former husband. The wife had been a legal secretary at the opposing firm from 1965 to 1970, and that firm had represented her in a personal injury claim in 1970. Neither the inquirer's firm nor the opposing firm had represented either party in the divorce action itself.

The Committee saw no conflict of interest for either firm in representing the ex-wife or the ex-husband on the post-divorce motions. It reasoned that the present representations were not related to the prior representations of the wife or the husband, and that its Opinions 154 and 158 were controlling. The Committee added that, on the unqualified representation that the current litigation involved solely facts arising after the final divorce judgment, the matter was a new one.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1977, 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. Duties to former clients and the imputation of a lawyer's conflicts to the firm correspond in current New Jersey terms to RPC 1.9 and RPC 1.10. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Does a partner's past job at the opposing firm disqualify the new firm?

A: Under this opinion, not where the new matter is unrelated to the prior representations. The Committee found no conflict because the post-divorce motion involved only facts arising after the divorce judgment.

Q: Did the ex-wife's old job as a legal secretary at the opposing firm matter?

A: The Committee did not treat it as disqualifying. It found the present representations unrelated to the earlier ones, including the firm's 1970 personal-injury work for her.

Q: What made it a "new matter"?

A: The Committee relied on the unqualified representation that the litigation involved solely facts that arose after the final divorce judgment, which placed it outside the scope of the prior representations.

Background and rules framework

The opinion addressed whether prior connections to the opposing firm, a partner's former employment there and the client's former job there, barred representation in a later, unrelated matter. The Committee treated the post-divorce motion as a new matter unrelated to the earlier representations, relying on its Opinions 154 and 158. In current New Jersey terms, duties to former clients are governed by RPC 1.9 and firm-wide imputation by RPC 1.10.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

MR 1.9 / NJ RPC 1.9 (duties to former clients); MR 1.10 / NJ RPC 1.10 (imputation)

Other opinions cited:

NJ ACPE Opinion 154, 92 N.J.L.J. 353 (1969); Opinion 158, 92 N.J.L.J. 641 (1969)

Source

Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp378-1.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.

Full opinion text unavailable from the official source; see the linked source above for the complete text.

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1977. Ezel checks the current New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
Chat, drafting and research in one workspace