Rutgers School of Law, OAL case acp440

104 N.J.L.J. 449
November 22, 1979

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL ETHICS

Appointed by the Supreme Court of New Jersey

OPINION 440

Juvenile Justice Clinic-Public
Defender's Unit - Prosecutor's Unit in One
Law School Center Under One Clinical Director

Inquiry has been made by the Director of the Juvenile Justice Clinic at Seton Hall Law School concerning two questions posed by the following statement of facts:
"In 1973 a Juvenile Justice Clinic was established at the Seton Hall Law Center. This clinic consisted, at that time, of a Public Defender's Unit, which provided services to indigents appearing before the Juvenile Courts of Essex County. The Clinic received authorization from the New Jersey Supreme Court to operate in conjunction with the Essex County Public Defender's Office, and pursuant to this authorization has been handling detention hearings, probable cause hearings, pleas, trials, and dispositions for the past five years. Recently, the Public Defender's Clinic was invited to expand its services into another country, and as a result it has begun limited operations in Middlesex."

JUSTICE CLINIC - PROSECUTOR'S UNIT
    In the fall of 1978, through the efforts of both the Essex County Prosecutor's Office and the Seton Hall Law Center, a second clinical unit involving the prosecutorial function was added to the Juvenile Justice Clinic of Seton Hall. The purpose of this program is to allow students the opportunity to gain courtroom opinions in the juvenile justice system by participating in detention and probable cause hearings, pleas, trials, and dispositions. Prior to beginning operation the Prosecutor's unit received authorization from the New Jersey Supreme Court in addition to the approval of the presiding judge of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and the Essex County Prosecutor.
PHYSICAL SITUS, STAFFING, ETC.
    Because of the operation of both the Public Defender's Unit and the Prosecutor's Unit in the Juvenile Courts of Essex County, it became apparent that students from the Seton Hall Law Center would often find themselves on opposite sides of a juvenile hearing or trial. Accordingly, steps were taken to insure that the two clinical programs would remain distinct in their operations:
    1) Separate and secure offices were established for each unit.
    2) Each unit has its own files and office equipment.
    3) Each unit has its own secretary.
    4) The students in each program are different.
    5) No student interchange is allowed between the clinics.
    6) Each student has been warned of the possibility of a conflict of interest, and has been instructed not to discuss cases outside of court with students from the other units without an attorney present.
    7) Each of the units has its own Attorney of Record who serves as the Director of Trial Practice and is responsible for the day-to-day administration of cases in the clinic.

    8) Each unit is funded by a separate S.L.E.P.A. grant.
    9) The classroom component is separate for each of the units, although both units will together participate in a moot court exercise.
    Supervising the entire Juvenile Justice Clinical Program for the Seton Hall Law Center is a Professor of Law. The function of this Clinical Director is to serve as the coordinator of the academic program, to administer the grants, and to act as a liaison between the clinic and various interested groups (i.e., Law Center Faculty and Administration, Seton Hall University Administration, Essex County Public Defender's Office, Essex County Prosecutor's Office, etc.). The Clinical Director has no control over the assignment or handling of cases and has no access to the files of either unit. His primary concerns are funding, grant administration, curriculum development and student development and evaluation. The respective Directors of Trial Practice have responsibility for the day-to-day activities of the two programs, and report directly to their superiors in the Public Defender's or Prosecutor's Office.
    As to Question No. 1: Is there a conflict of interest posed by having a Prosecutor's Juvenile Justice Unit and a Public Defender's Juvenile Justice Unit in the same institution - namely that of the Seton Hall Law Center?
    This Committee had occasion to render an opinion with reference to a substantially similar inquiry concerning "Merger of City and County Legal Services Projects Representing Opposing Parties." See our Opinion 241, 95 N.J.L.J. 717 (1972). The facts in that opinion indicate that there had existed two entirely separate legal services projects, viz., the Newark Legal Services Project and the Essex County Legal Services Corporation, and that the two units, although separately administered, were reorganized to constitute a single nonprofit corporation known as the Essex- Newark Legal Services Project. The newly-formed corporation was governed by a single board of trustees which had the duty of hiring the Project Administrator, raising funds and establishing general policies. Prior to reorganization, the two units had separately handled matters for opposing clients. After reorganization the new corporation sought an advisory opinion on the propriety of the two units continuing to represent opposing parties in a given case. This Committee held in part:
        We anticipate no conflict of interest and therefore hold that an attorney from one project may represent one party to a cause while an attorney from the other project can represent an opposing party... The facts in the present inquiry indicate that such component will have its own administrator, will be a separate division and will be completely autonomous. There will be no sharing of office space and no possible access to files of one division by members of the others.

We hold that, upon statement of facts submitted, there is no conflict of interest with reference to Inquiry No. 1.
    As to Question No. 2: Is there a conflict in having one Clinical Director with ultimate responsibility for both the Prosecutor's Unit and the Public Defender's Unit?
    The factual situation presented indicates that a Professor of Law at Seton Hall Law School has been designed as the Juvenile Justice Clinical Director with ultimate responsibility for both the Prosecutor's Unit and the Public Defender's Unit. It has been represented that the Clinical Director exercises no control over the assignment or handling of cases, nor does he have access to the office or files of either unit. He serves as a coordinator of the academic program and acts as liaison between the clinic and other interested and involved parties (i.e., Law Center Faculty and Administration, Essex County Public Defender's Office and Essex County Prosecutor's Office). We are advised that the Clinical Director is primarily concerned with setting general policy in the areas of curriculum development, funding, grant administration and student development and evaluation. The Clinical Director apparently serves, we are informed, "only as a general overseer of the entire Juvenile Justice Program and is not involved in the handling of cases for either unit." The inquirer argues, and we believe correctly, that the position of Clinical Director is analogous to that of the board of trustees of the nonprofit corporation in Opinion 241.
    We are satisfied that, under the facts and circumstances submitted to us, there is no conflict in having one Clinical Director with purely administrative responsibility for both the Prosecutor's Unit and the Public Defender's Unit, who remains altogether removed from the cases to the end that client's confidences and secrets are preserved.

* * *

This archive is a service of Rutgers University School of Law - Camden