91 N.J.L.J. 749
November 21, 1968
OPINION 136
Attorney for Planning Board
Relative of Board Member
Is it ethical for an attorney to represent a planning board
when a relative (the attorney's uncle) is a member and chairman of
the board?
The attorney is employed by the municipality and paid by the
municipality. His function as attorney for the board, composed of
nine members, may be divided into two major categories:
A. Oral advice at the meetings and written
opinions concerning the rules and procedure of
the board and interpreting the general
statutes, subdivision, zoning, street, sewer
and water ordinances as they relate to a
specific application before the board;
B. The preliminary drafting of changes and
amendments to municipal ordinances concerning
planning which must by law emanate from the
planning board. He has also been asked to
assist the board in the newly proposed master
plan.
The attorney also performs legal services for his uncle on a
personal basis, but such matters are totally unrelated to any
matters before the board.
There appears to be no reason why an attorney cannot represent
a planning board, even though his uncle is a member and chairman of
the board. In so acting for the board he is not seeking directly or
indirectly any discretionary favor on behalf of a client. Even if
an attorney were to appear on behalf of a private client, before
the planning board on which his uncle sat as chairman, he would not
be guilty of any unethical conduct.
The Committee on Professional Ethics and Grievances of the
American Bar Association, in Opinion 200 (1940), in passing upon a
similar question, said:
It is not incumbent on a lawyer to refuse
to accept employment in a case because it may
be heard [in court] by his father or other
relative. The responsibility is on the judge
not to sit in a case unless he is both free
from bias and from the appearance thereof.
To the same effect, see Drinker, Legal Ethics, 72 and 277, and
Kremer v. City of Plainfield, 101 N.J. Super. 346 (Law Div. 1968).
It is, therefore, the conclusion of this Committee that on the
stated facts, there is no unethical conduct involved.