Can two New Jersey lawyers who share office space also share a computer and word-processing system, and still represent opposing clients?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry asked whether a conflict of interest existed between two lawyers that would disqualify them from representing adverse parties in matrimonial or other cases. The two lawyers had adjacent offices in the same building and already shared a library and some minor costs. The Committee noted that Opinion 417 already covered the shared-library arrangement and held it did not bar one lawyer from being an adversary of the lawyers in the adjacent office.

The new fact was that the two lawyers had purchased and now shared word-processing and computer facilities, a computer, two disk drives, and a printer, physically located in one lawyer's library room, so that the other lawyer's secretary used the equipment there. The general programs (word processing, forms, time-keeping, billing) were stored on shared disks, but the material relating to each lawyer's individual cases was kept on separate data disks used only by their respective secretaries and stored in their separate offices when not in use, so one lawyer's client information was not available to the other and confidentiality was maintained. The Committee likened the shared computer to the sharing of a photocopier, typewriter, or other mechanical device.

Extending Opinion 417, the Committee approved the joint use of the computer facilities and held that the sharing did not make the lawyers "office associates" as defined in R. 1:15-5(b), so they were not disqualified from opposing one another. The opinion stressed that lawyers entering such an arrangement must exercise reasonable care to prevent employees, associates, and others whose services they use from disclosing or using client confidences or secrets, should establish office procedures to assure confidentiality, and should fully explain the relationship to clients and obtain their consent to continue representing adverse interests in any pending lawsuit and to represent adverse interests in future matters, citing ABA Informal Opinion 1486.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1983, 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. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Could two lawyers who share a computer system represent opposing clients?

A: Yes. The opinion concluded the shared word-processing and computer facilities did not make the lawyers "office associates," so they were not disqualified from representing adverse parties.

Q: What made the sharing acceptable?

A: The opinion relied on each lawyer keeping individual client material on separate data disks used only by their own secretary and stored separately, so one lawyer's client information was not available to the other and confidentiality was maintained.

Q: What did the opinion require the lawyers to do to protect client information?

A: It directed that the lawyers exercise reasonable care to prevent employees and others from disclosing or using client confidences or secrets, establish office procedures to assure confidentiality, and explain the arrangement to clients and obtain consent before continuing or undertaking adverse representations.

Background and rules framework

The opinion was decided under the confidentiality and conflict principles then governing New Jersey lawyers, before the 1984 adoption of the Rules of Professional Conduct, and turned on whether the shared facilities made the lawyers "office associates" under R. 1:15-5(b). In current terms the analysis maps onto RPC 1.6 (confidentiality of information), RPC 1.7 (concurrent conflicts), and RPC 1.10 (imputation within a firm or among associated lawyers). The Committee treated a shared computer like a shared copier: a convenience that did not, by itself, associate the practices.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.6 / NJ RPC 1.6 (confidentiality of information)
• MR 1.7 / NJ RPC 1.7 (concurrent conflicts of interest)
• MR 1.10 / NJ RPC 1.10 (imputation among associated lawyers)

Court rules cited:

• R. 1:15-5(b) (definition of "office associate")

Other opinions cited:

• NJ ACPE Opinion 417, 103 N.J.L.J. 133 (1979) (shared library and facilities do not bar adverse representation)
• ABA Informal Opinion 1486 (Feb. 2, 1982) (precautions for shared office arrangements)

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 547: Sewerage Authority Counsel Whose Partner Sues the Authority

Source

• Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp515-1.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.

111 N.J.L.J. 392, April 14, 1983

OPINION 515

Joint Use of Word Processing and Computer Facilities Extension of Prior Opinion 417

This inquiry concerns whether or not a conflict of interest exists between two attorneys such as would disqualify them from representing adverse parties in matrimonial or other cases.

The two attorneys involved have adjacent offices in a three story office building located in the center of town, the first floor consisting of a retail establishment and the second and third floors containing approximately one dozen separate offices, mostly of attorneys. Attorney A's office is on the second floor and consists of a client waiting room, leading through the secretarial office directly into the attorney's private office. Off on one side of the secretarial office is Attorney A's library. This library was originally designated as a "library conference room" and for some time was used for conferences involving clients. That use for the most part has been abandoned, and now it is almost exclusively used as a law library and photocopy room and not generally intended for public admission.

In the immediately adjacent office, three attorneys (including Attorney B) share space and facilities. Those offices consist of a combination client waiting room and secretarial area and three private attorneys' offices to the side of this main room. Their offices have windows looking out over the park on the "square" where the windows are readily visible to the public and bear their names in typical gold leaf lettering. Parenthetically, since Attorney A does not have an office fronting on the "square", Attorney B had allowed Attorney A to place his name on Attorney B's private office window such that from the "square" the two names appear side-by-side, and from the inside of Attorney B's office, the two names, of course, appear side-by-side, only backwards. This practice is not unusual since one of the other attorneys in Attorney B's office has allowed another lawyer who maintains offices in the building, (but not fronting on the "square") to display his name in the same manner. Also to the side of this main room as part of Attorney B's suite of rooms is a library-conference room which is separated from Attorney A's private office by a connecting door which can be locked only from Attorney A's side.

Attorney A partially shares library costs with the attorneys in the adjacent office (as well as some other minor costs, such as a water cooler). Opinion 417) 103 N.J.L.J. 133 (1979) covers this situation thus far, such that it is not prohibitive for Attorney A to be an adversary to any of the attorneys in the adjacent office.

However, the above fact pattern is now complicated by the fact that Attorney A and Attorney B have purchased and now share word processing and other computer facilities consisting of a computer, two disk drives and a printer. This hardware physically remains in Attorney A's library room, thus requiring Attorney B's secretary to utilize the computer in Attorney A's office. The general programs encompassing word processing, forms, time-keeping, and billing functions are stored on disks available to both attorneys, but, importantly, the material relating to individual cases of each attorney is maintained on separate "data" disks used only by their respective secretaries and stored (while not in use) in each of their separate offices. Thus, individual client information of one attorney is not available to the other attorney, and confidentiality is maintained. In effect, the sharing of the computer facility is not unlike the sharing of a photocopier or typewriter or other mechanical device.

There are no pending cases between the attorneys.

We extend the principles set forth in Opinion 417, supra, and we approve of the joint use of the above computer facilities.

The above sharing of computer facilities in our opinion would not constitute the inquirer as being an "office associate", as defined in R. 1:15-5(b).

We stress, that whenever attorneys enter into arrangement as outlined herein, the attorneys must exercise reasonable care to prevent the attorney's employees and associates, as well as others whose services are utilized by the attorney, from disclosing or using confidences or secrets of a client.

The attorneys should be particularly sensitive to this requirement and establish office procedures that will assure that confidences or secrets are maintained. The attorneys also should explain fully the relationship to, and obtain the consent of their clients to continue to represent adverse interests in any pending lawsuits and to represent adverse interests in future matters See Informal Opinion 1486, American Bar Association, dated February 2, 1982.