Can a municipal court judge co-own an office building with the municipal prosecutor and municipal attorney of the same town, if they keep separate offices?

Plain-English summary

A sole practitioner who serves as a municipal court judge planned to build an office building as co-owner with a non-lawyer partner and to keep his own office there as a tenant. A two-lawyer firm, one of whom is the municipal attorney and the other the municipal prosecutor for the same municipality, proposed to office in the same building and to join the judge and his partner as co-owners. The judge stated there would be no sharing of space, with separate libraries, conference rooms, and reception areas, and that he had found no opinion on point.

The Committee concluded that the proposed relationship would be the equivalent of sharing office space and would, at the least, present an absolute appearance of impropriety; it asked what impression the average layman could have where the municipal court judge and the municipal prosecutor are business partners with offices in the same building. It found Opinion 185 almost directly on point, where it had held that such a relationship constituted "office associates" within the meaning of R. 1:15, citing Opinion 74. Quoting Opinion 185, the Committee explained that lawyers are not office associates merely because they share a building or parking area, but co-ownership as tenants in common, equal participation in mortgage, tax, and maintenance expenses, and an existing office-associate relationship are additional factors; the thrust of R. 1:15 is to promote public confidence by preventing even the appearance of impropriety.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1986, before New Jersey's adoption of the 2004 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct, which abolished the "appearance of impropriety" standard on which this opinion rests. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can a municipal judge co-own a building with the prosecutor who appears in his court?

A: Per the opinion, no. The Committee held the co-ownership would present an absolute appearance of impropriety and be the equivalent of sharing office space.

Q: Did keeping separate offices, libraries, and reception areas solve the problem?

A: No. The opinion held that co-ownership as tenants in common and shared financial obligations made the lawyers "office associates" under R. 1:15 despite the physical separation.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rule 1:15, which addresses office-association relationships and is aimed at promoting public confidence in the profession by preventing even the appearance of impropriety. It relies on Opinions 185 and 74 (defining "office associates") and the Committee's long line of opinions on lawyer-government relationships, including Opinions 8 and 189.

Citations and references

Court rules:

• R. 1:15 (office associations; preventing the appearance of impropriety)

Other opinions cited:

• ACPE Opinion 185, 93 N.J.L.J. 505 (1970) (office associates)
• ACPE Opinion 74, 88 N.J.L.J. 357 (1965)
• ACPE Opinion 189, 93 N.J.L.J. 789 (1970)
• ACPE Opinion 8, 86 N.J.L.J. 718 (1963) ("avoid even the appearance of impropriety")
• ACPE Opinions 415, 103 N.J.L.J. 38 (1979); 563, 116 N.J.L.J. 203 (1985)
• ABA Committee on Professional Ethics, Opinion 49 (1931)

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 592: Appearing Before a Former-Partner Judge
• NJ ACPE Op. 602: A Municipal Judge's Partner and Forfeiture Work

Source

• Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp584-1.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.

117 N.J.L.J. 414, April 3, 1986

OPINION 584

Conflict of Interest - Ownership of Office Building Between Municipal Court Judge, Municipal Prosecutor, and Municipal Attorney

In Opinion 189, 93 N.J.L.J. 789 (1970), our Committee made the statement that:

Of the almost 200 opinions of this Committee published so far, 66 have involved questions arising out of the relationship between lawyers or law firms and governmental agencies in which the lawyer or a member of his firm occupies an official position, either elective or appointive. In addition, the Committee has voted to reject a great many inquiries concerning such situations where it seemed obvious that prior opinions had adequately answered the question presented.

The facts as presented by the inquirer are that an attorney who is a municipal court judge and is a sole practitioner (at the time of the inquiry) has plans to erect an office building as co-owner with a partner who is a non-lawyer; the attorney to have his office in the building as a tenant. Another law firm, consisting of two attorneys, one of whom is municipal attorney and the other of whom is municipal prosecutor for the same municipality for which the inquirer is judge, proposes to maintain its offices in the same building. Thus, the municipal court judge, the municipal attorney, and the municipal prosecutor would have their offices located within the same office complex. The latter two attorneys (that is, the law firm consisting of the municipal attorney and the municipal prosecutor) desire to become partners with the inquirer and his partner in the ownership of the office building. The inquirer further states that there would be no sharing of space; there would be separate libraries, separate conference rooms, and separate reception areas. He states further that he has reviewed the opinions of our Committee and has been unable to find an opinion on point.

We are of the opinion that the foregoing suggested relationship would involve a matter of the equivalent of sharing office space and certainly, at the least, would present an absolute appearance of impropriety. For example, what impression can the average layman have in a situation in which the municipal court judge and the municipal prosecutor are business partners with offices in the same office building?

Opinion 185, 93 N.J.L.J. 505 (1970) appears to be almost directly on point. In that Opinion, we held that the relationship would be of such a nature as to constitute "office associates", citing Opinion 74, 88 N.J.L.J. 357 (1965). The Opinion contains the following statement:

The facts here are similar to the facts in our Opinion 74, supra, except that the only office facility shared in common is the parking area. But does the non-sharing of "common office facilities" exclude from consideration all other elements of what may constitute an association? Lawyers cannot be considered office associates merely because their offices are in the same building or because they share a common parking area, but here there are additional factors. There are ownership of the property as tenants in common, equal participation in payment of mortgage interest, tax and maintenance expenses, and the fact that they are presently office associates and merely propose to relocate their offices to avoid the implication of the words "common office facilities" as used in the Rule. The thrust of R. 1:15 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 N.J. Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, Opinion 8, 86 N.J.L.J. 718 (1963), we said: "An attorney should not only avoid all impropriety, but should likewise avoid the appearance of impropriety."

The American Bar Association, Committee on Professional Ethics, Opinion 49 (1931), used the following language to express the ethical principle involved:

... If the profession is to occupy that position in public esteem which will enable it to be of the greatest usefulness, it must avoid not only all evil but must likewise avoid the appearance of evil.

See also Opinion 189, supra, 415, 103 N.J.L.J. 38 (1979); and 563, 116 N.J.L.J. 203 (1985).