Can a lawyer in good standing share or use office space with a disbarred attorney, and does moving the disbarred person's office within the same building fix the problem?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry came from a lawyer in good standing asking about his "association" with a disbarred attorney, measured against the Regulations Governing Conduct of Attorneys Suspended, Disbarred or Resigned promulgated by the Supreme Court. Regulation I bars a disbarred person from practicing law in any form and provides, in subsection (b), that "He shall not occupy, share or use office space in which an attorney practices law." The lawyer asked whether Regulation I(b) was being violated, and if so, whether relocating offices within the corporate headquarters building would cure it or whether the former attorney had to work out of an office in another building.

The Committee concluded that Regulation I(b) was being violated by the inquiring attorney and the disbarred attorney, with the burden of decision resting on the inquiring attorney. It analyzed the situation through the "office associates" concept it had developed in Opinion 74, which had found two lawyers sharing rearranged but connected office space to be "office associates." Here the display of the attorney's certificate immediately outside his private office, the disbarred person's adjacent office, and the common passageway and secretarial area created an impression of "sharing." The Committee concluded that the former attorney's office should be relocated to some other portion of the building if doing so would not violate the office-associate principles, and otherwise should be moved to another building.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in July 1971, before New Jersey's September 13, 1971 adoption of the Disciplinary Rules (Code of Professional Responsibility), so the Committee was applying the Canons of Professional Ethics, the then-current Supreme Court regulations and court rules, and its own prior opinions. It also predates the 1984 Rules of Professional Conduct and all later revisions, and the cited regulations and rule numbers have since changed. The principles it applied are now addressed under RPC 5.5 (unauthorized practice and assisting it) and RPC 5.3 (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistance), along with the current rules governing disbarred and suspended attorneys. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, regulation, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a disbarred attorney keep an office where a practicing lawyer works?

A: No. The Committee read Regulation I(b) to bar a disbarred person from occupying, sharing, or using office space in which an attorney practices law, and found it violated on these facts.

Q: Does moving the disbarred person's office within the same building fix it?

A: Only if relocating within the building would not violate the "office associate" principles. If it would, the Committee said the disbarred person should move to another building.

Q: What made the arrangement look like prohibited "sharing"?

A: The attorney's certificate displayed just outside his private office, the disbarred person's office immediately adjacent, and a common passageway and secretarial area, which together created an impression of sharing.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the Supreme Court's Regulations Governing Conduct of Attorneys Suspended, Disbarred or Resigned (Regulation I(b)) and the "office associates" concept drawn from the court rules and Opinion 74. In current New Jersey terms the questions about a disbarred person's presence in a law office fall under RPC 5.5 and RPC 5.3 and the current regulations on suspended and disbarred attorneys.

Citations and references

Rules and regulations:

• Regulations Governing Conduct of Attorneys Suspended, Disbarred or Resigned, Regulation I(a)-(b), as promulgated by the Supreme Court (1971)
• R. 1:15-5(b) (formerly R.R. 1:26-5(c)); R. 1:20-9(a)

Other opinions cited:

• NJ ACPE Opinion 74, 88 N.J.L.J. 357 (1965)
• NJ ACPE Opinion 185, 93 N.J.L.J. 505 (1970)
• NJ ACPE Opinions 4, 86 N.J.L.J. 357 (1963), and 22, 87 N.J.L.J. 13 (1964)

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 279: A Disbarred Former Partner Referring Cases as a Client
• NJ ACPE Op. 273: Sharing a Forwarding Fee With a Suspended Attorney

Source

• Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp213-1.html
• Issuing authority: New Jersey Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, via the NJ Courts Supreme Court Committees page

Original opinion text

Reproduced from a full-text mirror of the official opinion for research purposes. The linked official source controls.

94 N.J.L.J. 585, July 8, 1971

OPINION 213

Association with Attorneys Suspended, Disbarred or Resigned

This inquiry is from a lawyer in good standing, inquiring about his "association" with a disbarred attorney under the facts hereinafter stated, relative to the Regulations Governing Conduct of Attorneys Suspended, Disbarred or Resigned, promulgated by the Supreme Court.

a. Am I violating Regulation I (b)?

Regulation I (b). He shall not occupy, share or use office space in which an attorney practices law."

b. If so, would a relocation of offices within the corporation headquarters building cure the violation, or

c. If such relocation is not a cure, should the ex-attorney work out of an office in another building.

The Regulations at the outset, provide as follows:

An attorney who is suspended or disbarred or who has resigned shall comply fully with the letter and spirit of these regulations. (Emphasis added).

Section I appears to apply to the facts of this case:

(a) He shall desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form, either as principal, agent, servant, clerk or employee of another....

(b) He shall not occupy, share or use office space in which an attorney practices law.

It would appear that I (b) is being violated by the inquiring attorney and the disbarred attorney. The corporate employer is in no way involved in this decision. The inquiring attorney has the burden of decision. His problem is controlled by the general principles set forth in N.J. Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, Opinion 74, 88 N.J.L.J. 357 (1965) wherein we applied the term "office associates" under R. 1:15-5(b) (formerly R.R. 1:26-5(c)).

In that case, two attorneys dissolved their partnership and continued to maintain their offices in the same space in a small office building but rearranged them so that each attorney had a separate office entrance, a separate waiting room, a separate work room and individual offices with a common corridor between them to rest rooms and a general purpose room used by each attorney for conferences and for storage purposes. Each remitted his rent separately and their respective practices were in no way related except that, upon occasion, one would refer work to the other on a profit-sharing basis. One of the attorneys was appointed municipal attorney and the inquiry concerned the propriety of the other practicing before agencies of the municipality of which his ex-partner was the municipal attorney. We held that the facts constituted the attorneys "office associates" within the meaning of the Rule which was then R.R. 1:26-5(c) and such practice would be improper. We also made reference to the application of the Canons of Professional Ethics as set forth in our Opinions 4, 86 N.J.L.J. 357 (1963), and 22, 87 N.J.L.J. 13 (1964). See also Opinion 185, 93 N.J.L.J. 505 (1970), to the same general effect. It would appear that the display of the attorney's certificate immediately outside his private office, with the ex-attorney's office immediately adjacent to his, and both reached through a common passageway and secretarial area, creates an impression of "sharing," which is prohibited by R. 1:20-9(a), and brings the attorney and ex-attorney within the term of "office associates." A relocation of the ex-attorney's office should be made to some other portion of the building, if in doing so, the principles applicable to an "office associate" would not be violated, otherwise he should be moved to another building.