Link to original WordPerfect Document

                                             87 N.J.L.J. 19
                                            January 9, 1964


Appointed by the New Jersey Supreme Court


Conflict of Interest
Municipal Attorneys

    Inquiry is made: (1) as to the propriety of an attorney for a local board of health representing private litigants before the board of adjustment, planning board or governing body of the same municipality whose board of health that attorney serves; and (2) whether such attorney may represent private litigants in suits against the same municipality arising out of adverse decisions of its board of adjustment.

Question No. 1

    It is the duty of an attorney in public employ to be, and remain, above suspicion even at personal financial sacrifice. It is our opinion that a board of health attorney should not represent private litigants before the various boards or agencies, or before the governing body of the municipality employing that attorney. Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 6; and this Committee's Opinion 4, 86 N.J.L.J. 357 (1963), Opinion 5, 86 N.J.L.J. 361 (1963), and Opinions 18, 19, and 20, 86 N.J.L.J. 734 (1963).
Question No. 2

    For the reasons stated in this Committee's Opinions 19 and 20, supra, this Committee concludes that the answer to Question No. 2 should be in the negative. See also, "Notice to the Bar" by Chief Justice Weintraub, 86 N.J.L.J. 713 (1963)
* * *

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