91 N.J.L.J. 797
December 12, 1968
OPINION 137
Conflict of Interest
Municipal Attorney Suing School Board
This inquiry concerns the propriety of an attorney
representing a workmen's compensation petitioner in a claim against
the board of education of the municipality in which the attorney is
employed as an assistant municipal attorney. The inquirer advises
that the board of education in the municipality is an appointed
board under Chapter 12 of Title 18A of the New Jersey Statutes.
In our Opinion 77, 88 N.J.L.J. 453 (1965), we held that an
attorney who was an appointed member of a board of education under
Chapter 6 of R.S. 18 (now Chapter 12 of N.J.S. 18A), could not
properly represent private clients before other municipal agencies
such as the board of adjustment, planning board, housing authority,
etc. We noted that the board in such cases is appointed by the
municipality and that the chapter (now Chapter 22 of N.J.S. 18A)
also provided for the appointment of a board of school estimate
with municipal representation which had veto power over the budget
prepared by the school board. Such control deprived the board of
education of its autonomous nature and subjected it to a degree of
municipal control not found in the case of an elected board. Cf.
our Opinion 41, 87 N.J.L.J. 285 (1964).
We have repeatedly held that an attorney employed by one
agency of a public body may not appear for or against other
agencies of the same public body. Such representation by attorneys
is proscribed because it "cannot help but give rise to suspicion
that, by virtue of being members of the same official ... family,
they have influence which could be asserted on behalf of such
client beyond that possessed by other members of the bar." Opinion
106, 90 N.J.L.J. 97 (1967).
We, therefore, hold that it would be improper for the
municipal attorney in this case to prosecute a claim against the
board of education which is appointed by the members of the
municipal body which the attorney represents.