87 N.J.L.J. 285
May 7, 1964
OPINION 42
Conflict of Interests
Actions Against Former Clients
An attorney who recently completed a term as county counsel
inquires whether he may now appear for a private litigant in an
action where the board of chosen freeholders is a party defendant.
He indicates that any matter which he would undertake would be
completely "disassociated from transactions that were handled while
counsel to the governing body."
An attorney who serves as county counsel has among his clients
as such the county and its board of chosen freeholders, which is
the governing body of said county. When he ceases to serve as
attorney to such a client, he cannot thereafter ethically accept a
retainer with another client if the subject matter of his new
retainer relates to any matters which were the subject of his
services in any way as counsel to the first client (Canons of
Professional Ethics, Canons 6 and 37).
A lawyer should never accept a retainer where his position may
be adverse to that of a former client without taking extreme care
to make certain that the new matter is one that will not be
affected in any way by confidential information that he may have
obtained in his former retainer. While a former private client may
consent to his appearance in a later case, even though a conflict
of interest may be in involved, such consent cannot be obtained
where the client is a public agency. Obviously, the dangers of such
conflict of interests are much greater where the cessation of the
attorney-client relationship as to the first client is relatively
recent. It is frequently difficult to determine what information or
knowledge of a confidential nature has come to a lawyer by reason
of the attorney-client relationship, and certainly in considering
a second retainer a lawyer should resolve any doubts in favor of
his client. This is particularly so since the spirit of the Canons
not only requires the avoidance of an actual conflict of interests
but anything that might give rise to a belief in the minds of the
public or others that a conflict in fact exists which may be used
unfairly to the disadvantage of the first client.