Are New Jersey lawyers 'office associates' just because they have separate offices in the same building one of them owns, and does a past office-sharing relationship keep them associated after they fully separate?

Plain-English summary

A township prosecutor asked whether the term "office associates" in R. 1:15 includes attorneys who previously shared the same suite but now have separate offices in the same two-story building. The building owner's law firm was on the second floor and the inquirer's office on the first, each entered by a separate outside door, with no common use of a conference room, entrance door, library, general-purpose room, or the like.

The Committee quoted R. 1:15(b), which defined "office associates" to include attorneys who share common office facilities. It held that where two or more attorneys are located in different office suites with separate office entries, waiting rooms, libraries, work rooms, and conference rooms, the fact that they are in the same building owned by one of them, whether or not they share a parking lot, restrooms, a main building entry, elevators, or a stairway, will not make them office associates within R. 1:15-5(b). It distinguished Opinion 185, where the common ownership of the building had been the determining factor.

The Committee also held that an office-associate relationship that existed before the complete physical separation of facilities does not continue afterward, provided the attorneys keep their law practices separated.

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. It interpreted the office-association court rule then designated R. 1:15. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Are two lawyers in the same building automatically a single firm for conflict purposes?

A: Under this opinion, no. With separate suites and no shared facilities, lawyers in one building (even one owned by one of them) are not office associates under R. 1:15-5(b), even if they share a parking lot, restrooms, main entry, elevators, or stairway.

Q: What kept them out of the rule?

A: Separate office entries, waiting rooms, libraries, work rooms, and conference rooms, with no common use of those facilities. The Committee distinguished Opinion 185, where joint building ownership was the determining factor.

Q: Does a former office-sharing relationship linger after they split up?

A: No. The Committee held the prior office-associate relationship does not continue after the lawyers completely separate their facilities, provided they keep their practices separate.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted R. 1:15-5(b), which defined office associates to include attorneys who share common office facilities. The Committee drew the line at shared facilities rather than shared address or shared building services, and treated complete physical separation, with practices kept apart, as ending a former office-associate relationship. Office-association status mattered because it determines whether lawyers are treated as connected for conflict purposes; current conflict questions are governed by RPC 1.7.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.7 / NJ RPC 1.7 (conflict of interest); decided under R. 1:15-5(b)

Court rules:

• R. 1:15(b), R. 1:15-5(b) (office associates)

Other opinions cited:

• NJ ACPE Opinion 22, 87 N.J.L.J. 13 (1964); Opinion 74, 88 N.J.L.J. 357 (1965); Opinion 185, 93 N.J.L.J. 505 (1970)

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 417: Sharing a Law Library Without Becoming Associates
• NJ ACPE Op. 498: Sharing Office Space With Non-Lawyers
• NJ ACPE Op. 648: Sharing Office Space With a Private Adoption Agency

Source

• Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp387-1.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.

101 N.J.L.J. 113, February 9, 1978

OPINION 387

"Office Associates,"
Prior Associates Using Same Building

Inquiry is made by a lawyer who is a township prosecutor asking if the term "office associates" used in R. 1:15 includes attorneys who previously shared the same suite, but now have separate offices located in the same two-story building, the building owner's law firm located on the second floor, the inquirer's office on the first floor, each entered by a separate outside door. The facts presented show no common use of facilities such as conference room, entrance door, library, general purpose room, or the like.

R. 1:15(b) defines the term "office associates" to include "attorneys who share common office facilities." We hold that where two or more attorneys are located in different office suites having separate office entries, waiting rooms, libraries, work rooms and conference rooms, the fact that the attorneys are located in the same building owned by one of the attorneys whether or not sharing parking lot, rest-room facilities, a main building entry, elevators, or stairway, will not constitute them "office associates" within R. 1:15-5(b). Opinion 22, 87 N.J.L.J. 13 (1964), Opinion 74, 88 N.J.L.J. 357 (1965), and Cf., Opinion 185, 93 N.J.L.J. 505 (1970), where the common ownership of the building was the determining factor.

We, also, hold that the "office associate" relationship existing prior to the complete physical separation of facilities does not continue thereafter, provided these attorneys keep their law practices separated.