Does a board of education's attorney have a conflict of interest when his wife is a teacher paid out of the same school budget he defends?

Plain-English summary

The inquirer was counsel to a board of education whose wife had received a temporary appointment as a teacher in the same system, with the possibility she might continue teaching there. The district's school budget had recently been defeated by the voters. He asked whether, if the budget had to go before an Administrative Law Judge and perhaps ultimately the Commissioner of Education, his support of the budget (which contained salary provisions) would be a conflict of interest, since his wife would be paid out of that budget.

The Committee observed that the situation, though related to questions addressed in other opinions, had not arisen on precisely these facts. It pointed to Opinion 318, where it had held that the wife of an assistant county counsel who was appointed to the board of freeholders and was a candidate for re-election did not create a conflict requiring her husband's resignation as assistant county counsel, citing numerous prior decisions. The Committee concluded that the possible conflict here was even more remote than in Opinion 318, and that there seemed to be little likelihood of any direct conflict.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1982, 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 2004 revisions abolished the freestanding "appearance of impropriety" standard underlying this line of opinions. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Was the school board attorney disqualified because his wife was paid from the budget?

A: No. The opinion concluded there was little likelihood of any direct conflict on the facts presented.

Q: What earlier opinion did the Committee rely on?

A: It relied on Opinion 318, which had found no disqualifying conflict where the wife of an assistant county counsel served on the board of freeholders, and treated the present situation as even more remote.

Background and rules framework

The opinion was decided under the conflict principles then governing New Jersey lawyers in public positions, before the 1984 adoption of the Rules of Professional Conduct, applying the Committee's family-relationship conflict line of cases. In current terms the analysis maps onto RPC 1.7 (concurrent conflicts, including those arising from a lawyer's personal or family interests).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

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

Other opinions cited:

• NJ ACPE Opinion 318, 93 N.J.L.J. 823 (1975) (no disqualifying conflict where assistant county counsel's wife served on the board of freeholders)

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 508: Lawyer Joining a Casino-Client Firm With a Spouse at the Casino Control Commission
• NJ ACPE Op. 516: Partner of a Judge or County-Board Member as Assistant County Counsel

Source

• Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp492-1.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.

109 N.J.L.J. 294, April 8, 1982

OPINION 492

Conflict of Interest School Board Attorney's Wife a Teacher

The possible conflict posed by this inquiry is one that has been dealt with in other opinions but not in precisely this factual situation. The inquirer states that he is counsel for a board of education; that his wife has received a temporary appointment as a teacher in that system and that there is a possibility she may continue to teach there in the future. The school budget for the district was recently defeated by the voters and he questions whether, if the budget is required to go to court to be heard by an Administrative Law Judge, and perhaps ultimately by the Commissioner of Education, his support of the budget, which obviously contains salary provisions, will represent a conflict of interest since his wife will be paid out of that budget?

In Opinion 318, 93 N.J.L.J. 823 (1975), we held that the wife of an assistant county counsel who was appointed to the board of freeholders of the county and was a candidate for re-election, did not create a conflict requiring the resignation of the husband as assistant county counsel, citing numerous prior decisions. The possible conflict situation here is even more remote than that and there seems to be little likelihood of any direct conflict.