May the attorney for a municipal housing authority represent private clients before the same municipality's court, zoning board, planning board, and other agencies?

Plain-English summary

The inquirer was the attorney for a municipal housing authority who asked whether he could appear before the municipal court, board of adjustment, planning board, township committee, or other municipal agencies in his private practice, representing private clients with no connection to the housing authority or its activity. The Committee noted the attorney was appointed under the Local Housing Authorities Law, N.J.S.A. 55:14A-1 et seq., and that N.J.S.A. 55:14A-4 makes the authority an agency and instrumentality of the municipality or county creating it. It cited Taylor v. Leonard, 30 N.J. Super. 116, 119 (Ch. Div. 1954), where the court stated that the housing authority is a municipal agency.

The Committee said the fact that the authority's attorney is appointed by the authority's commissioners rather than by the governing body was unimportant, because the authority is created by the municipality. Drawing on its Opinion 64, which held that an attorney serving as a member of a municipal parking authority could not represent clients in the municipal court or before other agencies of the same municipality, the Committee reasoned that, just as with a municipal attorney appearing before a municipal agency, the losing litigant or the public would be troubled by the suspicion that the adversary's success was attributable to the lawyer's position or influence as a municipal official.

The Committee concluded that the attorney for a municipal housing authority cannot appear before the municipal court, board of adjustment, planning board, township committee, or other municipal bodies in the municipality served by the housing authority.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in July 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 the Canon 6 conflict-of-interest principles the Committee developed for attorneys connected to municipal agencies. That subject is now treated under RPC 1.7 and RPC 1.11. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could a housing authority attorney represent private clients before the town's agencies?

A: No. The Committee held he could not appear before the municipal court, board of adjustment, planning board, township committee, or other municipal bodies of the municipality the authority serves.

Q: Did it matter that the clients had no connection to the housing authority?

A: No. The bar applied even to private clients unconnected with the authority, because the public would suspect the lawyer's municipal position or influence affected the result.

Q: Did it matter that the commissioners, not the governing body, appointed the attorney?

A: No. The Committee said that was unimportant, because the housing authority is created by the municipality and is a municipal agency under the statute.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the Canon 6 conflict principles the Committee developed for lawyers tied to municipal agencies, treating a housing authority as a municipal agency under the Local Housing Authorities Law (N.J.S.A. 55:14A-1 et seq., 55:14A-4) and Taylor v. Leonard. It relied on the appearance-of-influence rationale from its Opinion 64. In current New Jersey terms, the conflict analysis maps to RPC 1.7 and RPC 1.11.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• N.J.S.A. 55:14A-1 et seq. (Local Housing Authorities Law); N.J.S.A. 55:14A-4 (authority is an agency and instrumentality of the municipality)

Cases:

• Taylor v. Leonard, 30 N.J. Super. 116, 119 (Ch. Div. 1954), the housing authority is a municipal agency

Other authorities:

• Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 6 (conflicting interests)

Other opinions cited:

• NJ ACPE Opinion 64, 87 N.J.L.J. 801 (1964): a municipal parking authority member may not represent clients before the municipal court or other agencies of the same municipality
• NJ ACPE Opinions 4, 37, and 52: appearance of municipal influence

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 82: An Authority's Attorney Representing Developers
• NJ ACPE Op. 88: A Lawyer Who Sits on the Zoning Board
• NJ ACPE Op. 217: A Municipal Utilities Authority Attorney's Conflicts

Source

• Landing page: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp79-1.html

Original opinion text

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

88 N.J.L.J. 460
July 15, 1965

OPINION 79

Conflict of Interest Housing Authority Attorney

The inquirer is an attorney for a municipal housing authority. He asks if he may appear before the municipal court, board of adjustment, planning board, township committee or other municipal agencies in his private practice, representing the interests of private clients who have no connection whatsoever with the housing authority or its activity.

The attorney who submits the question was appointed under the "Local Housing Authorities Law," N.J.S.A. 55:14A-1 et seq. N.J.S.A. 55:14A-4 provides:

...Such authority shall constitute an agency and instrumentality of the municipality or county creating it. The authority shall consist of six members who shall be appointed and hold office for the terms as hereinafter provided. The governing body shall appoint five commissioners of the authority. (Emphasis added)

In Taylor v. Leonard, 30 N.J. Super. 116, 119 (Ch. Div. 1954), the court specifically states that the housing authority is a municipal agency.

Our attention has been called to the fact that the attorney for the housing authority is appointed by the commissioners of the authority and not by the governing body of the municipality. This, in our opinion, is unimportant in deciding the question submitted. The fact remains that the housing authority is created by the municipality.

In N.J. Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, Opinion 64, 87 N.J.L.J. 801 (1964), this Committee held that an attorney serving as a member of the municipal parking authority could not properly represent clients in the municipal court of the same municipality, or appear before other governmental agencies thereof. We recognized that a municipal parking authority is largely autonomous in nature, but, nevertheless, the authority is by statute "an agency and instrumentality of the municipality or county creating it." In that opinion we stated:

Just as in the case of a municipal attorney representing a private client before a municipal agency, the losing litigant or the public in general will be troubled by the suspicion that his adversaries success in the matter was attributable to his position or influence as a municipal official.

See N.J. Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, Opinion 4, 86 N.J.L.J. 357 (1963); Opinion 37, 87 N.J.L.J. 190 (1964); Opinion 52, 87 N.J.L.J. 610 (1964); and the other opinions cited therein.

It is our opinion, therefore, that the attorney for a municipal housing authority cannot appear before the municipal court, board of adjustment, planning board, township committee or other municipal bodies in the municipality which is served by the public housing authority.