100 N.J.L.J. 698
August 11, 1977
OPINION 376
Office Relationship
Municipal Magistrate,
School Board Solicitor
The solicitor of the board of education of a municipality
having a type II school district and the municipal magistrate of
the same municipality have been discussing the possibility of
sharing office space in a building owned by one of them. The exact
nature of the proposed relationship (e.g, tenant, partner, office
associate) is not disclosed. They inquire:
Is it a violation of ethics for two lawyers, one
being the solicitor for the board of education and the
other being the municipal magistrate, to form an
association or share office space in the same building?
We find nothing unethical in the proposed relationship, per
se. However, once the association has been established, the
provisions of R. l:l5-l(c), 1:16 4; and 1:15 5 will be applicable.
These rules give rise to the collateral consideration as to whether
in a municipality having a type II school district a partner or
associate of the municipal magistrate for that municipality may
represent the board of education in view of the proscription in R.
1:16-1(c) that a municipal magistrate shall not act "as attorney
for any agency or officer" of the municipality wherein he serves as
magistrate. We have followed Botkin v. Westwood, 62 N.J. Super.
416, 427 (App. Div. 1968), which held that the legislative
intention is clear beyond a question that a Chapter 7 school
district (now classified as a type II school district, N.J. 18A:9-1
et seq.) shall be completely independent and free from any control
or intrusion by the municipal governing body in the affairs
committed to its sole sphere. See also this Committee's Opinion 44,
87 N.J.L.J. 297 (1964), and Opinion 41, 87 N.J.L.J. 285 (1964). A
type II board of education elected by the people is clearly
autonomous and therefore is not "an agency of the municipality"
within the purview of R. 1:16-1(c).
If the solicitor of the board of education of a type II school
district and the magistrate of the same municipality become
associated in the practice of law, the solicitor's representation
of the board of education may continue in the absence of possible
conflicts that can arise as noted in Botkin v. Westwood, supra.