If there's not such a prohibition, there should be, IMO.

Otherwise, a lot more self-serving "volunteers" would then become the accountant, contractor... etc.

Do you really want your neighbor to be the buildings attorney ?

Are you confident that he can initiate proper legal action against ... hmm ... let's say his next door neighbor who hasn't paid his dues for six months or the nice old lady down the hall that his wife loves to chat with in the laundry room. Are you really sure that he will be able to do what is in the best interest of your building or simply apply any board decision without any emotional interference ?

I would strongly advise you against even considering his application.

Thank you for your response. I wonder though why it would be any harder for the board's attorney, even if he owned an apartment in the building, to take legal action against a neighbor than board members voting on a resolution to take legal action against a neighbor? First, it's not the attorney's decision to sue anyone, it's the board's decision. The attorney acts at the direction of the board. Second, one could apply the same reasoning regarding favorable-neighbor-bias (or negative-neighbor-bias) to argue that board members shouldn't live in the building they govern because the neighbor-bias impedes board members from exercising independent decision-making about their neighbors. Yet, almost every residential coop and condo board is governed by neighbors. Is a board member less likely to vote to initiate a lawsuit against the next door neighbor who hasn't paid his dues for six months or the old lady down the hall his wife loves to chat with in the laundry room? Yes, probably or at least no more or less likely than a the board member would be. In fact, as an elected officer, the board member would be more influenced by neighbor bias. My question doesn't pertain to the general dilemma living and governing in the same building. Being uncomfortable or having conflicting feelings is one thing- these dilemmas make for the hassles, headaches and war stories of board members and residents aliek, but they are not stories of unethical behavior and self-dealing. If I vote with my board to fine my next door neighbor, I may be reluctant because he may resent me and he indeed may give me the evil eye in the hallway. But that's not an issue of self-dealing or unethical behavior. My question is about outright prohibitions on certain actions and whether there is a panel that issues advisory opinions for board members, analogous to ones with attorneys. The reason the panel exists for attorneys is that these issues are not facile and there are often countervailing benefits that sometimes result in the answer that an attorney is not acting unethically. For example, what attorney would more zealously represent the building's interests in a construction defect lawsuit against the developer than one who owns in the building? What attorney would be willing to give a discount for legal services to a building with weak financials for services other than one who lives in the building? Or should we reject this option because the attorney, who is a former board member, should continue to "volunteer." That's not realistic, expecting not only present board members to serve with no compensation but they should also continue to provide their expertise for free in perpetuity? I understand there will be differing and valid perspectives, but I really want to take my issue to an official panel if there is one for an advisory opinion rather than have an interesting debate that doesn't give me an answer either my board or the attorney can rely upon to protect ourselves.

Dear Coop and Condo owners, I would advise you not to allow an attorney that served on the Board to represent your building. The reason is about ten months ago our Board through the reccomendation of Cooper Square/Wentworth Management AKA Marvin Gold brought in an attorney Jack Lepper without a Board meeting or minutes. Cooper Square realty was fired by Seabreeze Condo board for the same illicit practice of harrassing Shareholders and covering up information.

The reason Cooper Square/Wentworth AKA Marvin Gold, brought in Jack Lepper was to cover up the Boards malfeasance. Mr. Jack Lepper involves himself with the Board meetings, how to conduct them, how to position n Board members at the Board election so that no questions regarding the buildings financial postion or the improprieties of funds, such as no money to pay bills, every month we are in a deficit etc. Mr. Jack Lepper of Kagan Lupic Lepper Lewis Gold Colbert 200 Madison Avenue 24th. floor, New York, N.Y. 10018. Mr. Lepper set up a mock meeting called the informational meeting a couple of weeks before the election,he advised his clients (the Board) to advise their supporters not to attend so not to hear the questions that will be addressed to the Board, what he did was to conduct the meeting, he is only to represent legal matters in the building no to run the Board meetings, it is only for Shareholders and he is not one of us. When he heard the questions that was asked and the Board could not answer nor will they answer them, he then knew how to postion his clients at the election, what he did was advise them not to sit at the podium so that questions will be directed to them, he had them scattered all over the meeting room so that they would not be questioned while he was busy counting proxies, he allowed his clients proxies that were extored to be counted, but disqualified all ours that held the name of a Board member collecting for her team, because she happened to be away that evening on a trip that had been preplaned. Instead of allowing us to go to those Shareholders to find out what their intent was, he disqualified them so that we would lose the election.

At the informational meeting we asked Mr. Jack Lepper why he was paid $4000.00 recently from our coop, his response was he didn't know, or remember, we asked him if Knight Marketing sounded familiar, he said no. We said but that was recently, why didn't he recall being paid $4,000 as a new attorney in our building. His response was oh that was for many services I performed, we asked what services, he said for letters written to Shareholders in arrears, that was a lie, the Board hadn't collected arrears in three years, she saves those people to extort signatures for her proxies come election. We showed Lepper an invoice for Knight Marketing in the sum of $2,000 that hadn't been paid in two years,for supplies delivered to our building, the client turned the invoice over to their attorney for collection and therefore, the invoice for $2000.00 was paid to Lepper plus $2,000 in legal fees. Which in essence Jack Lepper is guilty of errors and ommissions and will be reported to the Disaplinary Committee for unethical practices. Jack Lepper is now harrassing Shareholders with threats to those Shareholders that went against his clients. We are taking him before the committee on many unethical practices, as well as to court for mailings from his office without letter head in behalf of his clients. Do not use or trust Jack Lepper of Kagan Lupic Lepper Lewis Gold and Colbert or Cooper Square/Wentworth AkA Marvin Gold of 6 East 43rd. Street New York 10017 save your building and your investment. Our building is a nightmare since they have been brought in by a corrupt Board, birds of a feather flock together.

Too DD:
Was Jack Leppper a former member of your building's board?

No, but he is acting as one now. Whether before or after it is a direct conflict of interest, once on the Board or any affiliance in a coop or condo it is a conflict of interest, therefore they cannot represent the building in a legal capacity.

How ironic, Jack Leppers practice is advertized at the bottow of web talk?

Bob

It is ironic how this man should be allowed to practice. He has been giving false advise since March 2010 when he first was hired in our building without board meeting with all members, no competive bidding or interview process and no minutes. He has been giving false information to Shareholders and harrassing them not being familiar with our proprietary lease, by-laws or ammendments. He only requeste them when a potential lawsuit became visible in November 2010 when he contacted the Sponser for them, and they didn't have all the amendments. Would you trust him in your building?