Can a lawyer who sits on a municipal zoning board of adjustment, or a member of that lawyer's firm, represent private clients before the same town's boards and governing body?

Plain-English summary

A member of a municipal zoning board of adjustment asked the Committee three questions: whether he or any member of his firm could represent applicants before the municipality's planning board; whether a member of his firm could represent applicants before the zoning board of adjustment if he disqualified himself from the determination; and whether he or his firm could appear before the municipality's governing body on behalf of a private client.

The Committee concluded that the answer to each question is in the negative. It treated the questions as raising the same basic problems it had resolved in its earlier inquiries, citing Opinions 4, 5, and 11. Self-disqualification from the individual matter did not cure the conflict for the lawyer's firm.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in December 1963, 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 conflict-of-interest principles the Committee had developed in its Opinions 4, 5, and 11 under the former Canons of Professional Ethics; such conflicts are now analyzed under RPC 1.7. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could a zoning-board member represent private applicants before the same town's planning board?

A: No. The Committee answered that question in the negative, along with the other two.

Q: Did it help if the board member disqualified himself and let a firm colleague handle the matter?

A: No. The Committee still answered in the negative; disqualification from the individual determination did not let a member of the firm appear.

Q: Could the member or his firm appear before the municipality's governing body for a private client?

A: No. The Committee answered that question in the negative as well.

Background and rules framework

The opinion rested on the conflict-of-interest principles the Committee had set out in its Opinions 4, 5, and 11, applying the former Canons of Professional Ethics to a lawyer holding municipal office. The analysis is now found in RPC 1.7 (conflict of interest, current clients).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct (as in effect at the time):

• Former Canons of Professional Ethics (conflict of interest), as applied in the Committee's Opinions 4, 5, and 11

Other opinions cited:

• N.J. ACPE Opinion 4, 86 N.J.L.J. 357 (1963)
• N.J. ACPE Opinion 5, 86 N.J.L.J. 361 (1963)
• N.J. ACPE Opinion 11, 86 N.J.L.J. 621 (1963)

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 18: Counsel to a City Housing Authority
• NJ ACPE Op. 88: Attorney Member of a Zoning Board
• NJ ACPE Op. 322: Board of Adjustment Member Suing the Municipality

Source

• Landing page: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp15-1.html

Original opinion text

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

86 N.J.L.J. 734
December 26, 1963

OPINION 15

Conflict of Interest
Zoning Board Member

A member of the zoning board of adjustment of a certain municipality inquires:

1. May I or any member of my firm properly appear to represent applicants before the planning board of that municipality?
2. May a member of my firm properly appear to represent applicants before the zoning board of adjustment of that municipality, provided that I disqualify myself from sitting in the determination of any such application?
3. May I or any member of my firm properly appear before the governing body of that municipality on behalf of a private client?

These questions raise the same basic problems presented in previous inquiries considered by this Committee, and, in our opinion, the answer to each question is in the negative. See Opinions 4, 86 N.J.L.J. 357 (1963); 5, 86 N.J.L.J. 361 (1963); and 11, 86 N.J.L.J. 621 (1963).