May a real estate lawyer accept appointment to chair a municipal committee advising on a property reassessment while he represents local landowners before the town's boards?

Plain-English summary

The inquirer had practiced in his municipality for 40 years, mostly in real estate, represented a local savings and loan association and a local commercial bank, and appeared before the planning board and zoning board on behalf of private clients, though he held no official municipal position. The mayor and council asked him to chair a three-man committee to advise professional assessors the municipality would engage in a reassessment of land values. He valued the work but, because his almost entirely local practice required him to keep appearing for private clients before the local boards, said he would decline the appointment if it would preclude those appearances.

The Committee observed that the inquirer had in the past, did presently, and would in the future represent several clients owning land within the municipality whose land values for tax purposes would undoubtedly be affected by the reassessment program. Canon 6 prohibits the representation of conflicting interests except by the express consent of all concerned, and where one of the clients is a municipality that consent is generally not available (citing the Committee's Opinion 4).

The Committee therefore concluded that the inquirer should not accept the appointment by the mayor and council to the committee directly concerned with the reassessment of land values within the municipality.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in August 1966, 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 Canon 6 (conflicting interests, consent of all concerned). The subject is now treated under RPC 1.7 (concurrent conflicts of interest), which has its own consent framework. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 the real estate lawyer chair the reassessment committee?

A: No. The Committee concluded he should not accept the appointment, because the reassessment would affect his clients' land values and Canon 6 barred the conflicting interests.

Q: Could client consent cure the conflict here?

A: The Committee noted Canon 6 allows conflicting representation only by the express consent of all concerned, and that where one client is a municipality, that consent is generally not available.

Q: What was the conflict, concretely?

A: The lawyer represented landowners whose property-tax values would be set by the very reassessment program the committee was advising on, putting his private clients' interests against the municipal task.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Canon 6 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, which barred representing conflicting interests absent the consent of all concerned, to a lawyer asked to take a municipal role bearing directly on his private clients' property-tax assessments. In current New Jersey terms, the analysis maps to RPC 1.7 (concurrent conflicts of interest).

Citations and references

Other authorities:

• Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 6 (conflicting interests; consent of all concerned)

Other opinions cited:

• NJ ACPE Opinion 4, 86 N.J.L.J. 357 (1963): a municipality's consent to conflicting representation is generally unavailable

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 102: A Lawyer Serving on a Municipal Charter Committee
• NJ ACPE Op. 98: An Intermunicipal Sewerage Authority's Attorney

Source

• Landing page: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp96-1.html

Original opinion text

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

89 N.J.L.J. 497
August 4, 1966

OPINION 96

Attorney on Municipal Reassessment Committee

An inquiry has been made by an attorney who asserts that he has been a resident of X municipality for 40 years and that most of his practice in X municipality is concerned with real estate. He is the attorney for a local savings and loan association and local commercial bank. He appears before the planning board and zoning board of the municipality on behalf of private clients. He presently holds no official position with the municipality.

The attorney has been asked by the Mayor and Council of the municipality to accept an appointment as chairman of a three-man committee to be appointed by the Mayor and Council for the purpose of advising with professional assessors who are to be engaged by the municipality in the reassessment of land values in the municipality. His knowledge and experience of real estate values within the municipality would be valuable to it. However, his practice, which is almost entirely local, requires him to continue to appear on behalf of private clients before the local planning and zoning boards. The inquirer states that, if accepting this appointment will preclude his ability to appear before these local boards, he will decline the same.

Question: May he accept the appointment as chairman of the three-man committee?

It is obvious from the facts set forth by the inquirer that he has in the past, and presently does, and will in the future, represent several clients owning land within municipality X, whose land values for tax purposes will undoubtedly be affected by the reassessment program.

Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 6, prohibits the representation of conflicting interests except by the express consent of all concerned, and in the event one of the clients is a municipality that consent is generally not available. See this Committee's Opinion 4, 86 N.J.L.J. 357 (1963).

It is therefore the opinion of this Committee that the inquirer should not accept the appointment by the Mayor and Council to the committee which is directly concerned with the reassessment of land values within the municipality.