94 N.J.L.J. 1002
October 28, 1971
OPINION 221
Conflict of Interest -
State Division of Tax Appeals
Judge and His Associates
The inquiry is as follows:
1. If an associate of a firm is a judge of the State
Division of Tax Appeals, may the firm represent
clients in tax appeals before County Board of
Taxation?
2. If an associate of a firm is a judge of the State
Division of Tax Appeals, may the firm represent
clients in appeals before the State Division if the
associate does not participate in either the
hearing or the decision to be made by the State
Division?
In N.J. Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, Opinion
189, 93 N.J.L.J. 789 (1970), we thought we had set forth clearly
the rationale of all previous inquiries regarding conflict of
interest arising out of the relationship between lawyers, law firms
and governmental agencies.
It would seem to us that the associate of the firm involved,
who is a member of the State Division of Tax Appeals, certainly
could not appear before a County Board of Taxation. Decisions of
the county board are appealed to the state board, of which he is a
member. This should answer both questions because the prohibition
governing the associate member of the firm would ascend to all
members of the firm, associates and partners. The mere fact that
the associate would disqualify himself in matters before the State
Division involving his firm would not change the ethics of the
problem.
The "appearance of wrongdoing” still remains where the public
is concerned. In the Disciplinary Rules of the Code of Professional
Responsibility, DR 9-101, when read with DR 8-101, clearly
establishes the guidelines for the lawyer who holds public office
or a public position. It is set forth at length in our Opinion 189
herein before referred to. Public confidence in government and the
profession must be preserved. The standards to be observed have
been clearly set forth by this Committee in numerous opinions. See
N.J. Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics Opinions 22, 87
N.J.L.J. 13 (1964); 168, 93 N.J.L.J. 7 (1970); 182, 93 N.J.L.J. 492
(1970); 186, 93 N.J.L.J. 617 (1970); 191, 94 N.J.L.J. 33 (1971);
192, 94 N.J.L.J. 44 (1971).
For the reasons stated, the answer to the above questions is
in the negative.