Link to original WordPerfect Document
118 N.J.L.J. 875
December 18, 1986
ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL ETHICS
Appointed by the Supreme Court of New Jersey
OPINION 596
Conflict of Interest -
Council Member/P.B.A. Attorney
The inquirer is an associate of a law firm which is general
counsel to a labor relations firm. The latter is retained by the
local township P.B.A. to advise it on legal matters raised during
contract negotiations. Through the labor relations firm, the
inquirer's law firm has become counsel to the P.B.A. in the
Township and is paid by the latter for services rendered to it.
The inquirer asks: (1) whether, under this state of facts, is
he barred from participating in a Township elective office, (he has
been asked to run for the Township Council); (2) if he is elected
to the Council, does his participation turn upon the representation
of the P.B.A. by his law firm (we assume the inquirer means would
his general participation as a Council member be inhibited by this
representation); and (3) is it sufficient, if he is elected, and
his firm continues to represent the P.B.A., that he recuse himself
in Council matters pertaining to the Township police force?
It is clear that the mere fact that his law firm represents
the local P.B.A. does not, per se, disqualify him from serving on
the Township Council. We said in Opinion 28, 87 N.J.L.J. 106
(1964):
A lawyer's experience and broad contacts render him
especially equipped to serve on public bodies and to
furnish to the public the benefit of his experience,
skill and training. A municipality should not be deprived
of this gratuitous advice for the public welfare.
However, will recusing himself from dealing with the local
police department matters while his firm represents the P.B.A.
eliminate the perception in the public mind that, in dealing with
the Council, the P.B.A. will obtain some advantage by reason of the
attorney being on the Council? This is the basic question to be
decided.
In our Opinion 320, 98 N.J.L.J. 857 (1975), we discussed,
generally, the rule concerning attorneys representing P.B.A. both
in civil and criminal proceedings as that rule is enunciated in
State v. Galati 64 N.J. 572 (1974). In the latter case, the Court
said at page 577:
The P.B.A. has in the public mind a quasi official
status as the conspicuous spokesman for the interests of
all policemen.
Having in mind that all police officers in the municipality
probably belong to the P.B.A., or in the case of the superior
officers, to a similar organization, and that the Council fixes the
budget with salaries or other benefits to the police, will this
disqualify the inquirer from dealing with these matters?
In RPC 1.7(c)(2), it is stated that:
in certain cases or situations creating an appearance of
impropriety rather than an actual conflict, multiple
representation is not permissible; that is, in those
situations in which an ordinary knowledgeable citizen
acquainted with the facts would conclude that the
multiple representation poses substantial risk of
disservice to either the public interest or the interest
of one of the clients.
It is our opinion that, if the inquirer is elected to the
Township Council and, if his firm wishes to continue to represent
the P.B.A., he must disqualify himself from any discussions or
actions on the Council which involve the police department in any
way thus, eliminating any appearance of impropriety. This, of
course, will limit his service to the public but absent such total
abstinence, an ordinary, knowledgeable citizen might conclude that,
in police department matters, the public interest might be
subordinated to that of the P.B.A.
* * *
This archive is a service of
Rutgers University School of Law - Camden