Link to original WordPerfect Document
113 N.J.L.J. 544
May 17, 1984
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL ETHICS
Appointed by the New Jersey Supreme Court
OPINION 532
Marketing of Card
Advising of "Miranda" Rights
The inquirer states that he has invented and copyrighted a
card which could be delivered to persons charged with criminal
offenses apprising them of their Miranda rights. He characterizes
the card as "the Miranda card". He desires to market the card by
setting up a separate business corporation which will distribute it
throughout the nation. The inquirer's card submitted to us has his
name on it. It is not clear whether, when he markets the card, the
inquirer's name will be on it, but certainly the name and address
of the separate business entity that will handle it, will be. The
inquirer states that he considers this unique and something never
done before.
He poses five questions:
1. Would it be appropriate to set up a separate
business to market the card?
2. If it is not appropriate to set up such
business, could he market the card as a
lawyer?
3. If a separate business were set up, would the
marketing constitute the "unlicensed" practice
of law?
4. Assuming the business is set up and kept
separate and apart from his legal business,
would there be a conflict of interest if he
were serving as a prosecutor for a
municipality?
5. If it is acceptable to market the card as a
lawyer, would there be a conflict if the
lawyer served as prosecutor of a local
municipality?
There is no need to answer the questions seriatim. Counsel
refers to DR2-102 (D) as authority for a lawyer engaging in a
business other than the legal profession as long as the business is
separate from his professional life. The quoted section merely
states that a lawyer shall not, if in another business or
profession, so indicate on the stationery or business card or in
any publication. The cited section is clear authority for the
proposition that he may not market the card as a lawyer. There is
no prohibition against his creating another business to market the
card if he so desires but that business and his law office must be
kept entirely separate.
It seems to us that, if he does pursue the business of
marketing the Miranda card through a separate business entity, this
action would be incompatible with his acting as a municipal
prosecutor. Since he is the sole owner of the business, it is his
alter ego and in the minds of the general public, the two positions
would be inseparable. An anomalous situation would arise if a
person were arrested in a municipality in which the inquirer was
the municipal prosecutor and the individual arrested were to hand
the arresting officer the Miranda card.
The Supreme Court in Higgins v. Advisory Committee on
Professional Ethics, 73 N.J. 123, 129 (1977), stated that the
appearance of impropriety must be reasonable rather than fanciful
and that there must be some reasonable basis for the perception
that impropriety exists. We think that in the situation posited
here there would be a real perception on the part of the general
public of impropriety.
If the inquirer pursues his desire to publish the Miranda
card, we believe this would preclude his being a municipal
prosecutor.
* * *
This archive is a service of
Rutgers University School of Law - Camden