May Connecticut municipal corporation counsel advise a board after a former personal client becomes one of its members?

Plain-English summary

Municipal corporation counsel had formerly represented an individual in personal matters unrelated to the municipality. The former client later joined a municipal board that could request legal advice only as an entity, not through individual members, and used different counsel for personal matters.

Rule 1.13(a) provides that corporation counsel represents the municipal corporation acting through authorized constituents. Rule 1.11(d)(1) makes Rules 1.7 and 1.9 applicable to a lawyer serving as a public officer or employee.

There was no direct adversity on the disclosed facts. Because the former representation did not involve the municipality, a material limitation also appeared unlikely. Counsel nevertheless must examine the full relationship, including confidential information, to determine whether responsibilities to the former client could limit representation of the municipality.

Rule 1.9 applies because the individual is a former client. It would bar a materially adverse municipal representation in the same or a substantially related matter without written informed consent and prohibits detrimental use of protected former-client information unless an exception applies.

If a matter in which counsel represented the individual later comes before the municipality, Rule 1.11(d) prohibits participation without the municipality's informed consent confirmed in writing. The Committee therefore found no present ethical impediment but required continuing analysis under Rules 1.7, 1.9, and 1.11(d).

In practice

Under this opinion, the former client's position on a municipal board does not itself make that person a current individual client of corporation counsel. The analysis changes if confidential information creates a material limitation or a prior matter later comes before the municipality.

Common questions

Q: Who is corporation counsel's client?

A: The municipal corporation acting through its authorized constituents, not each board member individually.

Q: Does the former client's board membership automatically create a conflict?

A: No. The Committee found no impermissible conflict on the unrelated facts presented.

Q: What must counsel still examine under Rule 1.7?

A: Whether responsibilities to the former client or protected information create a significant risk of materially limiting municipal representation.

Q: When does Rule 1.9 bar the representation?

A: When the municipal matter is the same or substantially related to the prior representation, the interests are materially adverse, and the former client has not given informed consent confirmed in writing.

Q: What if the former client's old matter comes before the municipality?

A: Rule 1.11(d) bars counsel's participation absent the municipality's written informed consent.

Background and rules framework

Rule 1.13(a) identifies the organizational client. Rules 1.7 and 1.9 govern material limitations and former-client conflicts, while Rule 1.11(d) applies those duties to government lawyers and addresses participation in prior matters.

Citations and references

Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Rules 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, 1.11(d), and 1.13(a)

See also

• CT Informal Op. 16-02: Municipal tax-sale concurrent-client conflict
• ABA Formal Op. 97-409: Successive government and private employment
• VSB LEO 1250: Former government lawyer and imputed disqualification

Source

• Landing page: Connecticut Bar Association Informal Ethics Opinions
• Original PDF: Informal Opinion 11-11