In New Jersey, does sharing only a law library make otherwise-separate lawyers 'office associates' who are treated as connected for ethics purposes?

Plain-English summary

An attorney who owned an office building proposed to lease or sell space to other attorneys, with the lawyers sharing only a common parking lot and a law library. The inquiry asked whether lawyers who share use of a law library become "office associates" within the meaning of R. 1:15-4 and 1:15-5(b), which would draw them within the rule's restrictions.

The Committee reviewed its prior treatment of the rule, including Opinion 406 and Opinion 185, where shared library use was coupled with joint ownership or other shared facilities. As Opinion 185 explained, the rule exists to promote public confidence and to prevent even the appearance of impropriety, and in those earlier situations there was always some relationship evident to the public, such as a prior partnership, joint ownership of the building, or a common entrance and waiting room.

The Committee held that sharing a law library by itself does not make the attorneys office associates, so long as their other facilities are strictly separate. It approved the joint use of a law library by attorneys not otherwise associated, on the conditions that they maintain separate and distinct office facilities without joint ownership of the building, and that the library be used strictly by the attorneys and their office staffs, not by clients or members of the general public. The Committee observed that law libraries are expensive and that relieving that burden serves the public.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1979, before New Jersey's 1984 replacement of the Disciplinary Rules by the Rules of Professional Conduct and the later revisions to those rules. It applied former Court Rules R. 1:15 and R. 1:16 governing office associations, and rested in part on the now-abandoned "appearance of impropriety" standard. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 sharing a law library alone make lawyers "office associates"?

A: No. The opinion held that sharing only a law library does not make otherwise-separate lawyers office associates, provided they keep separate and distinct office facilities and there is no joint building ownership.

Q: What conditions did the Committee attach to shared-library use?

A: The attorneys must maintain separate and distinct office facilities without joint ownership of the building, and the library must be used strictly by the attorneys and their staffs, not by clients or the general public.

Q: Why does it matter whether the public sees a relationship?

A: The opinion explained that the rule promotes public confidence and prevents the appearance of impropriety; in the earlier opinions the lawyers had a publicly evident relationship (prior partnership, joint ownership, shared entrance), which a private shared library does not create.

Background and rules framework

The opinion construed former Court Rules R. 1:15 (office associations) and R. 1:16, which the Committee described as designed to maintain public confidence and prevent the appearance of impropriety. The modern analog to the "office associate" inquiry, which determines whether separate lawyers are treated as one firm for conflict purposes, is the imputation principle of RPC 1.10.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.10 / NJ RPC 1.10 (imputation of conflicts within a firm), modern analog
• Former Court Rules R. 1:15-4, R. 1:15-5(b), R. 1:16 (office associations, as in effect 1979)

Other opinions cited:

• NJ ACPE Opinion 406, 102 N.J.L.J. 363 (1978) (common entrance and waiting room)
• NJ ACPE Opinion 185, 93 N.J.L.J. 606 (1970) (what constitutes association)
• NJ ACPE Opinion 74, 88 N.J.L.J. 367 (1965); Opinion 186 (prior partnership; joint ownership)

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 444: Cross "Of Counsel" Listings Between a Firm and a Sole Practitioner
• NJ ACPE Op. 415: Municipal and County Counsel Sharing an Office

Source

• Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp417-1.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.

103 N.J.L.J. 133, February 15, 1979

OPINION 417

Joint Use of Law Library - Resulting Relationships

We have been asked whether lawyers who share use of a law library are office associates within the meaning of R. 1:15-4 and 1:15-5(b). An attorney who is the owner of an office building proposes either to lease or sell office space to other attorneys. The lawyers will share only a common parking lot and law library, paying for them either in rent or as shared condominium facilities.

We have considered the application of R. 1:16 in several previous opinions, the most recent being Opinion 406, 102 N.J.L.J. 363 (1978). In that opinion, as well as in Opinion 185, 93 N.J.L.J. 606 (1970), common use of a library was involved along with sharing and joint ownership of other facilities. Opinion 185 sets forth at some length our views as to what constitutes association within the meaning of the rule. As we said there "The thrust of R. 1:16 is to promote public confidence in the legal profession and in our system of justice. One of its purposes is to enhance the public image of the profession by preventing even the appearance of impropriety." In the circumstances described in each of those opinions, the attorneys had previously been associated in the practice of law or were going to be connected in some fashion such as the joint ownership of the building where their offices were to be located. In each case there was some relationship which was evident to the public, e.g., previous association as partners (Opinions 74, 88 N.J.L.J. 367 (1965); and 185 supra); joint ownership of the building (Opinion 186 supra); common use of entrance and waiting room (Opinion 406 supra).

Now we are asked whether the sharing of a law library by itself will constitute the attorneys office associates within the meaning of the rule. We think not, so long as their other facilities are strictly separate. R. 1:15 is designed to maintain the confidence of the public. Where attorneys are sharing facilities or ownership, which are obvious to the public, they are office associates and come within the rule. A law library is and should be solely for the use of the attorneys. We are not unmindful of the fact that libraries are becoming very expensive and to the extent this burden of expense can be alleviated, the public should be better served.

Accordingly, we approve the joint use of a law library by attorneys not otherwise associated so long as they maintain separate and distinct office facilities without joint ownership of the building in which the offices are located and so long as the library is used strictly by the attorneys and their office staffs and not by clients or members of the general public.