99 N.J.L.J. 665
July 29, 1976
OPINION 343
Conflict of Interest
Attorney Defending Himself
in Rent Action by Former Client
An attorney and his wife leased an apartment in a complex
which his law firm and he represented in approximately twenty
eviction cases. When the landlord recently gave notice of a rent
increase on the attorney's apartment, the attorney determined that
the method of establishing the increase as well as its amount was
contrary to law and refused to pay the increase. The owner of the
apartment complex retained other attorneys who instituted suit
against the attorney and his wife for the increase plus late
charges. An answer was filed in behalf of the defendants by one of
the members of his law firm. The plaintiff's attorney challenged
the propriety of the representation since the defendant and his law
firm had previously represented the complex. The defendant
attorney's law firm withdrew as counsel, substituting the defendant
as attorney pro se for himself and his wife. Plaintiff's attorney
is now contending that DR 5-101 and DR 6-102 forbid the defendant
attorney firm representing his wife and himself pro se. The
defendant is of the opinion that DR 6-101(B)(4) permits him to
represent himself and his wife because of the hardship to which he
would be put if he were required to refer the case to another
counsel who had a background in landlord and tenant law as
extensive as his own, and the expense of paying such an attorney
would further increase the hardship "since the amount in
controversy is only $55."
The specific question is whether an attorney who, together
with his wife, is sued by a former client may represent himself and
his wife in the action, or must he retain independent counsel.
Though our spirits are deflated by the amount in controversy, we
conceive no ethical consideration which would prevent the attorney
from representing himself and his wife under the circumstances. He
has the same fundamental rights in this respect as any other
individual.