If one member of a law firm serves as a municipal councilman, can another member be attorney for the same town's elected board of education?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry asked whether, if one member of a law firm is a councilman in a municipality, another member of the firm may become the attorney for the same municipality's board of education. The board of education was an elected body that selected its own employees without any consent or approval of the municipal council.

The Committee found no conflict on those facts. It reasoned that the electorate is entitled to the services of the most skilled people it can secure as councilmen, and that the inquirer's partner, as an attorney, was especially equipped to serve on the council. Given the autonomous character of the board of education, it too was entitled to the free selection of its own attorney. Under normal procedures, the council and the board of education operated as distinct and separate entities, neither having any right to interfere with the other, citing Botkin v. Westwood.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in May 1964, 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, treating two autonomous public bodies as separate clients; such questions 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Was there a conflict in one partner being a councilman while another represented the board of education?

A: No. The Committee found no conflict on the stated facts, because the elected board of education was autonomous and the council and board operated as distinct, separate entities.

Q: Why did the board's autonomy matter?

A: Because the board selected its own employees without the council's consent or approval, the Committee treated it as independent of the municipal government, so representing it did not place the firm adverse to the council.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Canon 6 of the former Canons of Professional Ethics, turning on whether the two public bodies were distinct. Relying on Botkin v. Westwood, the Committee treated the elected board of education as autonomous and separate from the municipal council. The concurrent-conflict question is now analyzed under 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)

Cases:

• Botkin v. Westwood, 52 N.J. Super. 416 (App. Div. 1958), autonomy of a board of education relative to the municipality

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 41: School Board Attorney Representing Private Clients
• NJ ACPE Op. 59: Municipal and School-Board Attorney Partners
• NJ ACPE Op. 137: Municipal Attorney Suing a School Board

Source

• Landing page: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp44-1.html

Original opinion text

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

87 N.J.L.J. 297
May 14, 1964

OPINION 44

Conflict of Interests
Councilman - School Board Attorney

The following inquiry has been submitted for our opinion:

If one member of a law firm is a councilman in a municipality, can another member of the firm become the attorney for the board of education of the same municipality? The board of education in this municipality is an elected body and selects its own employees without any consent or approval of the municipal council.

Under the facts stated there appears to be no conflict. The electorate of the municipality is entitled to the services of the most skilled people they can secure as councilmen. The inquirer's partner, being an attorney, is especially equipped to serve on the council and to furnish the public the benefits of his experience, skill and training.

In view of the autonomous character of the board of education in the inquirer's municipality, it is also entitled to the free selection of its own attorney. Under normal procedures, both the council and the board of education, under the facts submitted by the inquirer, operate as distinct and separate entities, neither having any right to interfere with the other. See Botkin v. Westwood, 52 N.J. Super. 416 (App. Div. 1958).