## Facts

- Edward J. Dolan served as municipal attorney for the Borough of Carteret beginning in 1971.
- Carteret operated a federally funded urban-renewal program and created the Carteret Redevelopment Agency, which had separate legal counsel.
- The Agency approved a developer’s proposal to purchase and develop a tract for townhouses; the project received final municipal approval in November 1971.
- In mid-1972, after the developer’s initial counsel encountered financing issues, Dolan undertook representation of the developer in connection with the project.
- Dolan also represented a mortgage company involved in financing and sales of the townhouses.
- In numerous townhouse closings, Dolan represented both the developer-seller and the purchaser-mortgagors, while also having a relationship with the mortgage company.
- Purchasers generally were not informed of Dolan’s multiple roles until the day of closing, when written consents or waivers were executed.

## Issues

1. Whether Dolan’s concurrent and successive representation of the developer, the mortgage company, and purchaser-mortgagors in related transactions violated conflict-of-interest rules governing multiple representation.
2. Whether Dolan’s private work connected to a municipal urban-renewal project, while serving as municipal attorney, constituted misuse of public position or created an impermissible appearance of impropriety.
3. What discipline was appropriate given the nature of the violations and the absence or presence of intentional wrongdoing.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of New Jersey found that Dolan committed ethical violations involving conflicts of interest and the appearance of impropriety arising from his multiple representations tied to the redevelopment project.
- The Court treated last-minute, closing-day consents from purchasers as inadequate to cure the conflicts.
- The Court imposed a public reprimand, concluding that the misconduct reflected poor judgment rather than intentional corruption.
- A separate opinion concurred in part and dissented in part, indicating disagreement with the severity of the sanction.

## Legal Principles

- Lawyers holding public office must avoid not only actual impropriety but also conduct that creates an appearance that public responsibilities are being used to further private interests.
- A lawyer may not undertake multiple representation when independent professional judgment for any client is likely to be adversely affected by duties to another client or the lawyer’s own interests.
- Informed consent to multiple representation must be timely and meaningful; disclosure first made on the day of closing, when parties face strong pressure to complete the transaction, may be insufficient.
- In attorney discipline, lack of venality may mitigate the sanction but does not excuse structural conflicts and appearance-based violations that risk public confidence in government and the bar.

## Conclusion

The court publicly reprimanded a municipal attorney for undertaking interconnected private representations in a government-sponsored redevelopment context, holding that conflicted multi-party real estate representation and appearance-of-impropriety concerns warranted discipline despite the absence of intentional corruption.


In re Dolan, 76 N.J. 1, 384 A.2d 1076 (N.J. 1978)