Can the counsel to a city housing authority appear for private clients before that city's board of adjustment, planning board, or other agencies?

Plain-English summary

Two attorneys who served as counsel to a city housing authority asked whether they could appear on behalf of a private client before the board of adjustment, the planning board, or other agencies of the same city.

The Committee held that an attorney who is counsel to a city housing authority should not appear before the city's board of adjustment, planning board, or other city agencies on behalf of a private client. It reasoned that such an attorney has the entire municipality as his client, so he must avoid being put in a position where his duty to a private client requires him to ask for relief or a favor from the municipality or any of its agencies, citing its Opinions 4 and 5.

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 Canon 6 of the former Canons of Professional Ethics to a lawyer serving a municipal authority; 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 the housing authority's counsel appear for private clients before the city's planning or adjustment boards?

A: No. The Committee held he should not appear before the city's board of adjustment, planning board, or other city agencies on behalf of a private client.

Q: Why was the whole municipality treated as the client?

A: The Committee reasoned that an attorney representing a city housing authority has the entire municipality as his client, so seeking relief from any city agency for a private client would create a conflict.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Canon 6 of the former Canons of Professional Ethics through the Committee's Opinions 4 and 5, treating counsel to a municipal authority as having the whole municipality as his client. The conflict analysis is now found in RPC 1.7.

Citations and references

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

• Canon of Professional Ethics 6 (adverse influences and conflicting interests)

Other opinions cited:

• N.J. ACPE Opinions 4 and 5, 86 N.J.L.J. 357, 361 (1963): a municipal attorney's client is the entire municipality

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 20: Corporation Legislative Counsel Conflicts
• NJ ACPE Op. 52: Attorney to a Municipal Parking Authority
• NJ ACPE Op. 217: Municipal Utilities Authority Attorney Conflicts

Source

• Landing page: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp18-1.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 18

Conflict of Interest
Municipal Attorneys

Two attorneys who are counsel to a city housing authority inquire whether it is proper for them to appear on behalf of a private client before the board of adjustment, the planning board, or other agencies of the same city.

It is the opinion of the Committee that an attorney who is counsel to a city housing authority should not appear before the city board of adjustment, planning board, or other city agencies on behalf of a private client. An attorney representing a city housing authority has as his client the entire municipality. Hence, he should avoid being put in the position where his duty to a private client requires him to ask for relief or a favor from the municipality or any of its agencies on behalf of such private client. See Opinions 4 and 5 of this Committee, 86 N.J.L.J. 357, 361 (1963).