91 N.J.L.J. 257
April 25, 1968
OPINION 126
Conflict of Interests
Legal Aid - Legal Aid Society
An inquiry has been made by the board of trustees of a county
legal aid society and particularly by the chairman of the case
committee of that society requesting an advisory opinion. The
society is a nonprofit corporation funded through the Office of
Economic Opportunity, the anti-poverty agency of the Federal
Government, to provide legal services for indigents. The board of
trustees (comprised of lawyers and non-lawyers) determines the
policy of the organization within the guidelines of the Office of
Economic Opportunity. The board of trustees has recommended that
there be submitted to this Committee for its consideration several
questions of professional ethics which have arisen out of the
factual situation hereinafter described, and the society indicates
that it is requesting the determination of these questions so it
may be used by its organization in determining its policy in this
case and in similar ones which may arise in the future.
We are told that this matter pertains to six minors who
entered a public school building without authority after school
hours and ransacked, defiled and vandalized the classrooms.
Apparently, one of the minors applied a lighted match to the
furnishings and, as a result, the school building was set on fire.
We were also told that the board of education of the city
thereafter instituted legal proceedings in order to recover damages
to the building. The defendants named are the six minors and their
parents. Four of the six parents and their children named as
defendants now seek the representation of the legal aid society.
The board of education bases its damage claim on R.S. 18:14-51,
which states that any pupil who shall cut, deface, or otherwise
injure any schoolhouse, furniture, fences, outbuildings, or other
property of the school district shall be liable to suspension and
punishment, and his parents or guardian shall be liable for damages
to the amount of the injury to be collected by the board of
education in any court having jurisdiction, together with the costs
of the action.
The legal aid society makes the following inquiries:
1. If the society undertakes the defense of the various groups
of defendants, would it be representing a conflict of interests? It
is our opinion it would. We can see how there could be inconsistent
defenses pleaded by each of the defendants and we could even
anticipate that testimony from one defendant might be given that
would assist or prejudice one or more of the other defendants.
That, in itself, would require a determination that there is a
conflict of interests if the same person or persons were to assume
the defense of all.
2. There being a conflict of interests for the society to
represent the four groups of defendants, would full disclosure to
all parties permit the society to proceed with their defense? The
answer is "no."
3. There being a conflict of interests for one member of the
legal staff of the society to represent all the groups of
defendants, would the society be able to undertake their defense if
it were to assign each of the cases to a different member of its
legal staff? The answer here is "no," it being our opinion that the
society should allocate these various defendants to various
lawyers, but not to members of its own legal staff.
4. There being a conflict of interests, would it be
permissible for the society to represent one group of defendants
and to assign the other groups to attorneys who are members of the
board of trustees of the society? Here again the answer is "no,"
because this would be merely a subterfuge and in conflict with our
determination as above stated.
5. We have ruled on this question of partners many times
before, and have stated that what is wrong for a lawyer,
necessarily is wrong for his partner as well.
6. Would our answers be the same or different if it were
determined that the defendants were denied representation by the
society and therefore were unable to obtain counsel elsewhere
because of their indigency? While technically it is not for this
Committee to make such a determination, our answers are still the
same.