Can a municipal judge and the city attorney who appears before that judge share the same suite of law offices for their private practices?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1960. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Opinion 13 (adopted March 26, 1960; revised May 18, 1996) addressed a municipal judge and a city attorney who were permitted to practice law privately and shared a suite of offices. They did not share professional fees or their municipal salaries, and each kept a separate practice and individual books and records.
The Committee concluded the arrangement was improper and, in the revised opinion, that it violated Colo. RPC 3.5 (impartiality and decorum of the tribunal) and 8.4(e) (stating or implying an ability to influence a judge improperly). It identified a twofold danger: an inference that the city attorney might enjoy unwarranted status before the court for economic reasons, and an inference that legal points urged by the city attorney might carry extra weight because of the relationship outside court. Drawing on ABA opinions 104 and 16 and the principle that lawyers should not impair public confidence in the administration of justice, the opinion reasoned that the shared overhead and intimate professional quarters would make it nearly impossible to avoid conscious or unconscious reference to court matters, and that the relationship ought to be severed and separate offices established. A footnote added that the practice may also implicate provisions of the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1960 under the former Canons of Professional Ethics and revised May 18, 1996 to reference the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, which took effect January 1, 1993; it predates Colorado's 2008 revisions to those rules. The revised opinion cites Rule 3.5 (impartiality and decorum of the tribunal) and Rule 8.4(e) (implying an ability to influence a judge improperly), provisions later amended. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule or requirement mentioned here.
Common questions
Q: Can a city attorney share law offices with the municipal judge before whom he appears?
A: No, under this opinion. The Committee concluded the shared-office arrangement was improper and that it implied the city attorney could improperly influence the judge, in violation of Rules 3.5 and 8.4(e); the relationship should be severed.
Q: What was the concern, given they kept separate finances?
A: The opinion concluded that even with separate fees and books, the shared overhead and intimate professional quarters created an inference of improper influence and unwarranted status before the court, which undermines confidence in the administration of justice.
Q: Does this also implicate judicial-conduct rules?
A: The opinion noted in a footnote that the practice may also violate provisions of the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct addressing a judge's integrity, impartiality, and financial dealings, and recommended judges consult that code for guidance.
Background and rules framework
The original 1960 opinion applied the Canons of Professional Ethics and ABA opinions 104 and 16; the 1996 revision restated the analysis under the Colorado Rules of Professional Conduct, citing Rule 3.5 (Model Rule 3.5, impartiality and decorum of the tribunal) and Rule 8.4(e) (Model Rule 8.4, implying an ability to influence a judge improperly). A footnote referenced the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Colo. RPC 3.5 / Model Rule 3.5 (impartiality and decorum of the tribunal)
- Colo. RPC 8.4(e) / Model Rule 8.4 (implying an ability to influence a judge improperly)
Other opinions cited:
- ABA Committee on Professional Ethics Opinion 104 (sharing offices with a judicial officer)
- ABA Committee on Professional Ethics Opinion 16 (one firm member as prosecutor, another as defense counsel)
See also
Source
- Landing page: https://www.cobar.org/ethicsopinions
- Original PDF: https://www.cobar.org/Portals/COBAR/repository/ethicsOpinions/FormalEthicsOpinion_13_2011.pdf
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1960 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.