Township Council Meeting — Agenda

The Township's counsel could not properly also function as counsel for the planning board, In re Opinion 452, 87 N.J. 45, 51 (1981); N.J.S.A. 40:55D- 24, and there is no evidence the Township's attorneys did so here. The summary judgment record establishes the attorneys from McManimon, Scotland & Baumann, LLC law firm represented the Township only, and the planning board was separately represented by different counsel, Pat Dwyer. Thus, to the extent HGA was retained as the planning board's expert, the record summary judgment record does not support a determination that HGA served as a necessary intermediary for the purposes of engaging in privileged communications between the Township's counsel and its client, the Township. For those reasons, we conclude defendants failed to sustain their burden of demonstrating the undisputed facts established they were entitled to judgment as a matter of law on their claim the emails are protected by the attorney client privilege because its email exchanges with Baree were with a necessary intermediary. The motion court found HGA served as a necessary intermediary for the Township and the planning board because "HGA was retained as a consultant by the Township Counsel and the [p]lanning [b]oard," but, as noted, the summary judgment record does not support that finding such that it can be determined as a matter of law the emails constituted privileged attorney client A-2287-19 18 Pa018