Can a lawyer work for two different law firms at once, and also hold a part-time job with a state government agency?

Plain-English summary

The inquirer posed two questions. The Committee declined the second, which involved a fee dispute, and referred the inquirer to R. 1:20A, which creates the Fee Arbitration Committees with jurisdiction over such matters. It accepted the first question: whether a lawyer may work for more than one law firm and be paid by each on a division of fees based on services rendered.

The Committee concluded there was no reason to prohibit employment by both firms, so long as the attorney is not engaged in matters for one firm in which the other firm has an adversary position, and is not exposed to information in one firm that would be detrimental to the clients of the other, citing Opinions 105 and 224.

The inquirer also asked whether he could additionally be employed part-time by a state government department in a position that did not require a law license. The Committee found no ethical impediment, provided the employing agency's rules do not preclude such other employment and provided that (1) the law firms have no business with the agency, (2) the inquirer's agency employment does not give him confidential or privileged information usable to the firms' advantage and the agency's detriment, and (3) the employment does not violate N.J.S.A. 52:13-1(D) et seq.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1981, 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 principles it applied now correspond broadly to 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could the lawyer work for two firms at once?

A: Yes. The opinion concluded a lawyer may be employed by two firms, paid by each for services rendered, if their matters are not adverse and no detrimental client information is exposed.

Q: Could he also hold a part-time state government job?

A: Yes, in a position not requiring a law license, provided the agency's rules allow it, the firms have no business with the agency, no confidential information is misused, and N.J.S.A. 52:13-1(D) is not violated.

Q: What happened to the fee-dispute question?

A: The Committee declined it and referred the inquirer to the Fee Arbitration Committees under R. 1:20A.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the conflict and confidentiality principles then governing a lawyer's simultaneous engagements, with attention to the imputation concern when one lawyer serves multiple firms. In current New Jersey terms the analysis maps onto RPC 1.7 (concurrent conflicts) and RPC 1.10 (imputation). The Committee's safeguards centered on non-adversity and protecting each client's confidential information.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.7 / NJ RPC 1.7 (concurrent conflicts of interest)
• MR 1.10 / NJ RPC 1.10 (imputation of conflicts)

Statutes:

• N.J.S.A. 52:13-1(D) et seq. (state employment restrictions)

Court rules:

• R. 1:20A (Fee Arbitration Committees)

Other opinions cited:

• NJ ACPE Opinion 105, 90 N.J.L.J. 53 (1967)
• NJ ACPE Opinion 224, 94 N.J.L.J. 1206 (1971)

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 489: Assistant County Counsel as Special Counsel to a Municipality
• NJ ACPE Op. 478: An Assistant County Counsel's Associate on a County Criminal Appeal

Source

• Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp469-1.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.

107 N.J.L.J. 113, February 12, 1981

OPINION 469

Conflict of Interest Employment by Two Law Firms Also by State Governmental Agency

The inquirer poses two questions. The first is one which we will accept. The second involves a dispute as to fees and with respect to this, we refer the inquirer to R. 1:20A which creates the Fee Arbitration Committees. Those committees have jurisdiction over such an inquiry.

The first inquiry is whether the lawyer may work for more than one law firm and be paid by each on a division of fees based on services rendered. So long as the attorney is not engaged in matters for one firm in which the other firm has an adversary position and so long as the attorney is not exposed to information in one firm which would be detrimental to the clients of the other, there is no reason to prohibit employment by both firms. See Opinion 105, 90 N.J.L.J. 53 (1967), and Opinion 224, 94 N.J.L.J. 1206 (1971).

The inquirer also requests advice as to whether, in addition to these relationships there is any objection to his being employed by a department of the state government as a part-time employee. It is represented that the position in question does not require a license to practice law. Here again, we find no ethical impediment provided the rules of the employing agency do not preclude such other employment and provided further that (1) the law firms do not have any business with the governmental agency involved, that (2) the inquirer's employment with this agency does not result in his obtaining information of a confidential or privileged nature which could be used to the advantage of the law firms and the detriment of the governmental agency and that (3) the employment does not violate the provisions of N.J.S.A. 52:13-1(D), et seq.