If a lawyer is counsel to a local police union (PBA), can the lawyer appear in criminal courts in that area on matters where no PBA member is involved?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer who served as legal advisor to a local policemen's benevolent association asked whether he or his firm were precluded from appearing in any magistrate's court, or in the county criminal courts, where no member of the local PBA was involved in any way. The concern came from the Committee's earlier PBA-conflict opinions, Opinion 113 and Opinion 196.

The Committee read those opinions narrowly. It concluded that neither Opinion 113 nor Opinion 196 can be read so broadly as to preclude the inquirer or his firm from appearing in any court where no PBA member the inquirer represents is involved in any way. Opinion 113 described the ethical problem as arising only when the attorney representing the PBA appears in court on matters in which the police officer is the complainant or a witness for the complainant. Absent that circumstance, the Committee found no impropriety in appearing before these tribunals, and no reasonable appearance of impropriety. The Committee framed this opinion as supplementing Opinions 113 and 196, not modifying them.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1973, before New Jersey's adoption of the 2004 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct, and predates the 1984 replacement of the Disciplinary Rules by the RPCs. The conflict and appearance principles it applied are now treated under RPC 1.7. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer for a police union appear in criminal court at all?

A: Under this opinion, yes, in matters where no PBA member the lawyer represents is a complainant or a witness. The Committee found no impropriety in those appearances.

Q: What is the situation that does create a conflict?

A: Per Opinion 113, the problem arises when the PBA's attorney appears in court on a matter in which a police officer is the complainant or a witness for the complainant. Opinion 260 leaves that limit in place.

Q: Did this opinion change Opinions 113 and 196?

A: No. The Committee said this opinion supplements Opinions 113 and 196 and is not intended to modify them in any way.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the appearance-of-impropriety principle (DR 9-101 era) and the multiple-loyalty concern that drove its earlier PBA opinions to a lawyer who represents a police union. In current New Jersey terms, the conflict question is governed by RPC 1.7.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Appearance of impropriety / conflict principles as applied in 1973; now MR 1.7 / NJ RPC 1.7

Other opinions cited:

• NJ ACPE Opinion 113, 90 N.J.L.J. 473 (1967): PBA attorney's conflict when a police officer is complainant or witness
• NJ ACPE Opinion 196, 94 N.J.L.J. 65 (1971): related PBA-representation conflict

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 576: A Lawyer for a Probation Officers' Union and County Criminal Practice
• NJ ACPE Op. 261: A Prosecutor's Own Lawyer Defending the Accused
• NJ ACPE Op. 308: A Freeholder's Attorney Opposing the County Prosecutor

Source

• Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp260-1.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.

96 N.J.L.J. 1129, September 27, 1973

OPINION 260

Conflict of Interest P.B.A. Attorney - Criminal Practice

An attorney who is presently legal advisor to a local policemen's benevolent association inquires whether he, or members of his firm, are precluded from appearing in any magistrate's court where no member of the local PBA is involved in any way; or in the county criminal courts where no member of the local PBA is involved in any way.

Neither NJ Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics Opinion 113, 90 N.J.L.J. 473 (1967) nor Opinion 196, 94 N.J.L.J. 65 (1971), can be read so broadly as to preclude the inquirer or members of his firm from appearing in any court where no member of the local PBA represented by the inquirer is involved in any way. Opinion 113 is clear in describing the ethical problem as arising when the attorney representing the P.B.A. appears in court on matters in which the police officer is the complainant or a witness for the complainant. Absent this circumstance, it is our opinion that there is no impropriety in appearing before these tribunals, nor do the circumstances reasonably give rise to the appearance of impropriety. This opinion is intended to supplement our Opinions 113 and 196 and is not intended to modify such opinions in any way.