John Armano, Jr. v. Michele Martin
703 F. App'x 111
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- John Armano was Township Solicitor for Washington Township, NJ, appointed Jan. 2, 2013, term through Dec. 31, 2016; he was a partner in Trimble & Armano, LLC.
- A partner (Trimble) filed suit in state court on behalf of an opposing council candidate; the firm later voluntarily dismissed the suit.
- Township Council authorized charges and then removed Armano by two-thirds vote under the Faulkner Act, citing conflict of interest and a loss of trust and confidence in the attorney-client relationship.
- Armano sued in federal district court alleging inadequate notice and hearing and that removal was improper because an ethics expert said no Rules of Professional Conduct were violated.
- The District Court found Armano had notice and an opportunity to be heard, and that Council’s lack of trust constituted "cause" for removal; it granted defendants’ motions to dismiss/for summary judgment.
- The Third Circuit affirmed, holding that "cause" under the Faulkner Act can include a loss of trust that impairs the attorney-client relationship and that municipalities have broad home-rule authority to select officials.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Council’s removal satisfied the Faulkner Act requirement of removal "for cause" | Armano: "Cause" requires proof of ethical violation; expert showing no RPC violation precludes cause | Council: "Cause" includes broader conduct that undermines trust/ability to serve; need not be an ethical rule violation | Held: "Cause" is broad; loss of trust/confidence in solicitor is sufficient to remove for cause |
| Adequacy of notice and hearing | Armano: did not receive proper notice or fair hearing | Defendants: he received oral/written notice, explanation of evidence, and chance to present his side | Held: Due process (notice/hearing) was satisfied (citing Loudermill standard) |
| Whether a lay Council may determine compliance with Rules of Professional Conduct | Armano: only experts can determine RPC violations; lay Council cannot find ethics breaches | Council: removal was not based solely on RPC violations but on broader public interest and trust considerations | Held: Even accepting expert opinion, Council may remove for broader trust-based reasons unrelated to formal RPC findings |
| Scope of municipal power/home rule in selecting officials | Armano: council misapplied removal standard | Council: Faulkner Act grants municipalities broad power to select/regulate employments and internal affairs | Held: Faulkner Act and public interest/home-rule principles support Council’s authority to remove partisan appointee when trust is lost |
Key Cases Cited
- Golaine v. Cardinale, 361 A.2d 593 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1976) (defines "cause" as elastic; cause need not be crime and must be evaluated against office duties and public interest)
- Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (U.S. 1985) (due-process notice and opportunity-to-hear standard for public-employee removals)
- Hiering v. Twp. of Jackson, 589 A.2d 1373 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1990) (attorney-client trust and elected officials’ freedom to select counsel)
- Keuerleber v. Twp. of Pemberton, 617 A.2d 277 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1992) (discusses Faulkner Act home-rule and municipal powers)