Does serving as legal advisor to a local police benevolent association prevent a lawyer from also being appointed attorney for the municipal board of education?

Plain-English summary

An attorney who served as legal advisor to a local policemen's benevolent association asked whether he was precluded from accepting appointment as attorney for the municipal board of education. He noted that the board of education was an appointed board and that the board's attorney was selected by its appointed members.

The Committee saw no inherent conflict of interest in accepting the appointment. It relied on Opinion 260, which held that its opinions should not be read so broadly as to require attorneys for police benevolent associations to limit their practice, except in matters where the association's members might be expected to appear as witnesses. It also cited Opinion 345, in which it had declined to decide whether a municipal judge could serve as a school board attorney because of a substantive dual-office-holding question it would not reach, while pointing out the situations in which the individual would have to disqualify himself, such as where the board found it necessary to file charges or to appear in municipal court.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1978, 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. Conflict questions of this kind are now analyzed under RPC 1.7. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can a lawyer hold two public-facing legal roles, like PBA advisor and school board attorney?

A: Under this opinion, yes absent an inherent conflict. The Committee found none in a local PBA's legal advisor also serving as municipal board of education attorney.

Q: Were there limits on the dual role?

A: Yes. Drawing on Opinions 260 and 345, the Committee noted the attorney would have to disqualify himself in particular situations, such as where association members might appear as witnesses or where the board files charges or appears in municipal court.

Q: Did the Committee resolve whether the lawyer could lawfully hold both positions?

A: It addressed only the ethics question of conflict of interest. In the related Opinion 345 it had declined to decide the separate dual-office-holding question, treating that as outside what it would pass on.

Background and rules framework

The opinion addressed whether holding two public-facing legal roles created a conflict of interest, drawing on Opinion 260 (attorneys for police associations need not limit their practice except where members may be witnesses) and Opinion 345 (declining the separate dual-office-holding question while identifying disqualifying situations). In current New Jersey terms, conflict-of-interest questions are governed by RPC 1.7.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.7 / NJ RPC 1.7 (conflict of interest)

Other opinions cited:

• NJ ACPE Opinion 260, 96 N.J.L.J. 1129 (1973); Opinion 345, 99 N.J.L.J. 714 (1976)

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 470: Municipal Attorney Also Board of Education Attorney
• NJ ACPE Op. 623: Municipal Attorney Reserving Representation of Police Officers
• NJ ACPE Op. 610: Police-Officer Attorney Representing a Defendant Against His Municipality

Source

• Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp385-1.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.