Conflict of Interest - Member of County Board of Chosen Freeholders Serving in Various Municipal Capacities

116 N.J.L.J. 537
October 24, 1985

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

OPINION 575

Conflict of Interest -
Member of County Board of
Chosen Freeholders Serving
in Various Municipal Capacities

The Office of Attorney Ethics has inquired whether an attorney, who is a member of the Board of Chosen Freeholders of the county in which he resides, may also serve as (1) a public defender for a municipality within the county, (2) an attorney for a municipal utility authority for another municipality within the county, and (3) an attorney for the board of adjustment for another municipality within the county, without raising an impermissible appearance of conflict of interest.
We have most recently dealt with the Freeholder-attorney situation in Opinion 524, 113 N.J.L.J. 232 (1984). Our opinion in that matter referred, among others, to Opinion 291, 97 N.J.L.J. 801 (1974). Opinion 291 was reviewed and upheld by our Supreme Court in Higgins et al. v. The Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, et al., 73 N.J. 124 (1977).
Consistent with the principles set forth in these opinions, it is determined that:
1. An elected Freeholder-attorney may not serve as a public defender for a municipality within the county.

2. An elected Freeholder-attorney may not serve as an attorney for a municipal utility within the county.
 
3. An elected Freeholder-attorney may not serve as an attorney for a zoning board of adjustment in a municipality within the county.
 
* * *