If two former partners keep separate offices but share a conference room and still refer each other work, is one barred from practicing before the municipality where the other is the municipal attorney?

Plain-English summary

Two attorneys had dissolved their partnership about a year earlier but kept offices in the same small building, in the space the firm had used. After rearranging, they shared a common street entrance, but each had a separate office entrance, waiting room, workroom, and individual office, grouped at opposite ends of the floor, with a common corridor to the rest rooms and a shared "general purpose" room used for conferences and storage. Rent was paid separately. The inquiry said their practices were unrelated except that "upon occasion one will refer work to the other on the usual profit-sharing basis recognized by forwarding attorneys." One of them had become a municipal attorney, and the other asked whether he could practice before that municipality's court, board of adjustment, and planning board.

The Committee framed the question as whether these facts made the two "office associates" within Rule 1:26-5(c), which defines "office associates" to include attorneys who share common office facilities. It reasoned that a conference room shared by two attorneys is an important office facility within that definition, and that, in addition, each lawyer's occasional referral of work to the other on the usual profit-sharing basis, presumably based on a division of service or responsibility under Canon 34, meant each was working on the same case and was an office associate in the usual sense. The Committee concluded that because the office relationship made the two "office associates" under Rule 1:26, the rule precluded the inquirer from practicing before the municipal agencies of the municipality whose municipal attorney was his office associate.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in June 1965, before New Jersey's September 13, 1971 adoption of the Disciplinary Rules (Code of Professional Responsibility), and well before the 1984 Rules of Professional Conduct and all later revisions. It applied Rule 1:26 (office associates) and Canon 34, in the line of conflict opinions barring a municipal attorney's associates from practicing before his municipality. Those subjects are now treated under 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 citation mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Were the two ex-partners still "office associates" after dissolving the firm?

A: Yes. The Committee held that sharing a conference room (an important office facility) plus occasional fee-sharing referrals made them office associates within Rule 1:26-5(c).

Q: What was the consequence of being office associates?

A: The rule precluded the inquirer from practicing before the municipal court, board of adjustment, and planning board of the municipality whose municipal attorney was his office associate.

Q: Did separate entrances, waiting rooms, and rent payments avoid the result?

A: No. Despite those separations, the shared conference and general-purpose room, together with the referral arrangement, were enough to make them office associates under the rule.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Court Rule 1:26-5(c), which defines "office associates" to include attorneys who share common office facilities, together with Canon 34's division-of-fees standard, in the line of opinions barring a municipal attorney's associates from practicing before his municipality. In current New Jersey terms, the conflict and imputation analysis maps to RPC 1.7 and RPC 1.10.

Citations and references

Court rules:

• R. 1:26-4 and R. 1:26-5(c) ("office associates" include attorneys who share common office facilities)

Other authorities:

• Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 34 (division of fees)

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 78: When a Partner Works for the City
• NJ ACPE Op. 149: An Associate of the Municipal Attorney and the Planning Board
• NJ ACPE Op. 177: A Board of Adjustment Attorney Who Is an Associate of the Municipal Attorney

Source

• Landing page: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp74-1.html

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

88 N.J.L.J. 357
June 3, 1965

Municipal Attorney - Office Associate

Two attorneys dissolved their partnership about one year ago and have since then maintained offices in the same small office building, in the space formerly used by the firm. Since the dissolution, the office space has been rearranged so that although they use a common street entrance, each attorney has a separate office entrance, separate waiting room, separate workroom and individual office, each unit grouped at opposite ends of the same floor. In between the offices are a common corridor to rest rooms and a "general purpose" room used by each attorney for conferences and for storage purposes. Rent is remitted separately. The inquiry also states: "Our respective practices are in no way related, except that, upon occasion one will refer work to the other on the usual profit-sharing basis recognized by forwarding attorneys."

Because of the appointment of one of the attorneys as municipal attorney, the inquiry is made respecting practice by the other before agencies of the municipality of which his ex-partner is the municipal attorney.

Do the above facts constitute these attorneys "office associates" within the meaning of R.1:26-5(c) so as to preclude the inquirer from representing defendants before the municipal court and applicants before the board of adjustment and the planning board during his ex-partner's term of office. See R.1:26-4.

R. 1:26-5(c) provides: "The term 'office associates' as used in R. 1:26 shall include attorneys who share common office facilities." A conference room shared by two attorneys is an important office facility and comes within the definition cited. The opinion of this Committee is that the facts submitted do constitute these attorneys "office associates" within the meaning of R. 1:26-5(c).

In addition, each attorney "upon occasion" ... will refer work to the other on the usual profit-sharing basis recognized by forwarding attorneys." Presumably this is "based upon a division of service or responsibility," in accordance with the provision of Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 34, Division of Fees. Thus, on referral work each attorney, in the situation described in this inquiry, is working on the same case and is an "office associate" in the usual sense.

It is the opinion of this Committee that since the office relationship described constitutes these attorneys "office associates" under the provisions of R. 1:26, the rule precludes the inquirer from practicing before the municipal agencies of the municipality of which his office associate is the municipal attorney.