School District Counsel Suing Another School Board

101 N.J.L.J. 557
June 8, 1978
 

ADVISORY COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL ETHICS
 
Appointed by the New Jersey Supreme Court
 

OPINION 396

School District Counsel
Suing Another School Board

The inquirer is general counsel to a regional school district, although it does not represent the school district in matters relating to labor management negotiations. At present the inquirer represents two female high school coaches in a sex discrimination suit against another school district board of education which is not part of general school district which it represents, based upon alleged disparities in salary received by the female coaches vis-a- vis their male counterparts.
The inquirer is not on any list of approved attorneys of New Jersey Education Association (N.J.E.A.) and no attorney client relationships exist with N.J.E.A. Any legal fees which result from the litigation are the responsibility of the two individual coaches alone, although the complaint seeks to recover attorney's fees from the defendant school district. Inquirer understands that its clients may present its bill for legal services to N.J.E.A. for possible reimbursement to them by that organization.
The query is whether under the foregoing facts the continued representation of the two coaches in their sex discrimination suit against the school district may violate DR 5-105.

In our Opinion 372, 100 N.J.L.J. 633 (1977), we held that an attorney could not represent a local school board and also represent teachers in another school district when the attorney is
an approved attorney for N.J.E.A. Since the inquirer is not an approved attorney for N.J.E.A. and litigation expenses are the responsibility of the two female coaches and the defendant does not represent the defendant school district, we are of the opinion that there is no conflict of interest in the continued representation by the inquirer and therefore no violation of DR 5-105.
* * *