May a lawyer who is an appointed member of a Chapter 6 board of education represent private clients before the municipality's court and other boards?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned whether an attorney who is an appointed member of a board of education under Title 18, Chapter 6, of the Revised Statutes could represent individual clients before the municipal court and various municipal boards such as the zoning board, planning board, and housing authority. The Committee distinguished its Opinion 41, which had held that an attorney for a board of education elected under Title 18, Chapter 7, was not barred from representing clients before the various boards of the same municipality, because such an elected board was an autonomous body, citing Botkin v. Westwood, 52 N.J. Super. 416 (App. Div. 1958).

The present inquiry involved Chapter 6. The Committee noted that the inquirer was appointed by the mayor, and that Chapter 6 provides for a board of estimate, consisting of five members (two from the governing body, two from the school board, and the mayor), which has veto power over the budget the school board prepares. The municipality therefore has some control over a Chapter 6 board of education.

Drawing on its Opinion 37, which held it improper for a member of the board of health to appear before the other municipal agencies or the municipal court of the municipality where he holds office, the Committee said the same reasoning applies. It concluded it would be improper for an attorney who is an appointed member of a Chapter 6 board of education to represent individual clients before the municipal court or the various boards of the municipality.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in July 1965, 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 Canon 6 conflict-of-interest principles the Committee developed for attorneys holding municipal office. That subject is now treated under RPC 1.7. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could a lawyer on a Chapter 6 school board represent clients before the town's court and boards?

A: No. The Committee held it improper, because a Chapter 6 board of education is subject to municipal control through the board of estimate, placing the attorney-member in the position of other barred municipal officials.

Q: Why did an elected Chapter 7 board come out differently?

A: The Committee distinguished its Opinion 41, which treated a Chapter 7 elected board of education as an autonomous body, so its attorney was not barred from appearing before the municipality's other boards.

Q: What made the Chapter 6 board subject to municipal control?

A: The Committee pointed to the board of estimate, comprising members from the governing body, the school board, and the mayor, which holds veto power over the school board's budget.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the Canon 6 conflict-of-interest principles for attorneys holding municipal office, turning on whether the board of education was autonomous (elected, Chapter 7) or subject to municipal control (appointed, Chapter 6). It relied on its Opinions 37 and 41 and on Botkin v. Westwood. In current New Jersey terms, the conflict analysis maps to RPC 1.7.

Citations and references

Cases:

• Botkin v. Westwood, 52 N.J. Super. 416 (App. Div. 1958), an elected Chapter 7 board of education is autonomous

Other authorities:

• Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 6 (conflicting interests)

Other opinions cited:

• NJ ACPE Opinion 41, 87 N.J.L.J. 285 (1964): an attorney for an elected Chapter 7 board of education is not barred from appearing before the municipality's boards
• NJ ACPE Opinion 37, 87 N.J.L.J. 190 (1964): a board-of-health member may not appear before the municipality's other agencies or court

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 88: A Lawyer Who Sits on the Zoning Board
• NJ ACPE Op. 79: A Housing Authority Attorney's Private Practice
• NJ ACPE Op. 78: When a Partner Works for the City

Source

• Landing page: https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp77-1.html

Original opinion text

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

88 N.J.L.J. 453
July 15, 1965

OPINION 77

Conflict of Interests School Board Members

This inquiry concerns the propriety of an attorney, who is an appointed member of a board of education under Title 18, Chapter 6, of the Revised Statutes, in representing individual clients before the municipal court and various boards of the municipality, such as the zoning board, planning board, housing authority, etc.

In N.J. Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics Opinion 41, 87 N.J.L.J. 285 (1964), this Committee held that an attorney for a board of education elected under Title 18, Chapter 7, was not barred from representing individual clients before the various boards of the same municipality in which the school district was located. That was an elected board of education and as such was an autonomous body. See Botkin v. Westwood, 52 N.J. Super. 416 (App. Div. 1958).

The present inquiry involves Chapter 6. The inquirer is appointed by the mayor. Chapter 6 further provides for the appointment of a board of estimate which has veto power over the budget prepared by the school board.

The board of estimate consists of five members, two from the governing body, two from the school board, and the mayor. The municipality, therefore, has some control over a board of education functioning under Chapter 6.

In Opinion 37, 87 N.J.L.J. 190 (1964), we held that it would not be proper for an attorney, who was a member of the board of health, to appear before the other municipal agencies or the municipal court of the municipality in which he holds office. We believe the same reasoning applies to the instant inquiry.

It is our opinion that it would be improper for an attorney, who is an appointed member of a board of education functioning under Title 18, Chapter 6, to represent individual clients before the municipal court or the various boards of the municipality.