Can a lawyer serve as a board of education's attorney when his law partner is the attorney for the township?

Plain-English summary

A partner in a law firm explained that one of his partners was the attorney for the Township of X, and that he had been asked to act as counsel for the Board of Education of X and Y. He asked whether he could accept the position, and whether, in the event of a conflicting situation, both partners would have to withdraw from their respective representations or whether it would be enough for him alone to withdraw.

The Committee noted that the school board served two municipalities (X and Y), was an autonomous body that independently selected its own attorney, and would in most instances operate entirely independent of the municipality. Under the facts submitted, the township and the board of education were distinct and separate entities, neither having any right to interfere with the other, so there would be no conflict.

The Committee compared its Opinion 44, a similar though not identical situation, where it held that where one member of a law firm was a councilman, another member could serve as attorney for the board of education of the same municipality, with the caution that if and when a conflict arose both partners should disqualify themselves. Applying the same approach, the Committee concluded that the inquirer could be attorney for the board of education even though his partner was township attorney for one of the municipalities, subject to both of them disqualifying themselves if a conflict arose.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in November 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 the conflict principles of the former Canons of Professional Ethics. Conflicts of interest and their imputation among partners are now treated under RPC 1.7 and RPC 1.10. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can one partner represent the school board while another represents the township?

A: Yes, on these facts. The Committee held the inquirer could be attorney for the board of education even though his partner was the township attorney, because the entities are distinct and separate.

Q: Why was there no conflict?

A: The Committee found the board of education was an autonomous body, serving two municipalities and operating independently, so neither the township nor the board had any right to interfere with the other.

Q: What happens if a conflict does arise later?

A: Both partners must disqualify themselves. The Committee made the dual representation subject to both of them withdrawing from their respective representations in the event a conflict arises, following its Opinion 44.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the conflict-of-interest principles of the former Canons of Professional Ethics, drawing on the Committee's Opinion 44. In current New Jersey terms, the concurrent-conflict and partner-imputation analysis falls under RPC 1.7 and RPC 1.10.

Citations and references

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

• Canons of Professional Ethics (representing conflicting interests; partner disqualification)

Other opinions cited:

• N.J. ACPE Opinion 44, 87 N.J.L.J. 297 (1964): one partner a councilman, another attorney for the board of education; both disqualify on conflict

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 67: Municipal Attorney Serving as Attorney for Other Municipal Agencies
• NJ ACPE Op. 137: Municipal Attorney Suing the School Board
• NJ ACPE Op. 149: Associate of a Municipal Attorney and the Planning Board

Source

• Landing page: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp59-1.html

Original opinion text

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

87 N.J.L.J. 741
November 19, 1964

OPINION 59
Municipal Attorney and
School Board Attorney as Partners

A partner in a law firm states:

One of my partners is the attorney for the Township of X. I have been asked to act as counsel for the Board of Education of X and Y.

1. May I accept the position?

2. Must both my partner and I withdraw from our respective representations in the event of a conflicting situation, or is it sufficient for me alone to withdraw?

The school board apparently serves two municipalities, namely X and Y. It is an autonomous body and independently selects its own attorney. The board of education would, in most instances, operate entirely independent of the municipality.

Under the facts submitted by the inquirer the township and the board of education are distinct and separate entities, neither having any right to interfere with the other, and hence there would be no conflict.

In N.J. Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, Opinion 44, 87 N.J.L.J. 297 (1964), a similar, although not an exact, situation was presented. There we held that where one member of a law firm was a councilman in a municipality, another member of the same law firm could serve as the attorney for the board of education of the same municipality. We cautioned, however, that if and when a conflict arose, both partners should disqualify themselves.

It is our view, therefore, that the inquirer may be attorney for the board of education even though his partner is township attorney for one of the municipalities, subject to both of them disqualifying themselves in the event that a conflict arises.