Link to original WordPerfect Document
87 N.J.L.J. 19
January 9, 1964
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL ETHICS
Appointed by the New Jersey Supreme Court
OPINION 24
Conflict of Interest
Municipal Attorneys
Inquiry is made: (1) as to the propriety of an attorney for a
local board of health representing private litigants before the
board of adjustment, planning board or governing body of the same
municipality whose board of health that attorney serves; and (2)
whether such attorney may represent private litigants in suits
against the same municipality arising out of adverse decisions of
its board of adjustment.
Question No. 1
It is the duty of an attorney in public employ to be, and
remain, above suspicion even at personal financial sacrifice. It is
our opinion that a board of health attorney should not represent
private litigants before the various boards or agencies, or before
the governing body of the municipality employing that attorney.
Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 6; and this Committee's
Opinion 4, 86 N.J.L.J. 357 (1963), Opinion 5, 86 N.J.L.J. 361
(1963), and Opinions 18, 19, and 20, 86 N.J.L.J. 734 (1963).
Question No. 2
For the reasons stated in this Committee's Opinions 19 and 20,
supra, this Committee concludes that the answer to Question No. 2
should be in the negative. See also, "Notice to the Bar" by Chief
Justice Weintraub, 86 N.J.L.J. 713 (1963)
* * *
This archive is a service of
Rutgers University School of Law - Camden