Ezel / Ethics Opinions / DBHAWAII
DBHAWAII August 26, 2004

Is a public defender's office treated as a single firm for conflict-imputation purposes?

Short answer: The opinion concluded that, for purposes of imputed disqualification resulting from a conflict, the Office of the Public Defender or Federal Public Defender is a firm within the meaning of HRPC 1.10(a).

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2004. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 2004
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

The opinion addressed the conflict issue of imputed disqualification of a public defender. It concluded that, for purposes of imputed disqualification resulting from a conflict, the Office of the Public Defender or Federal Public Defender is a firm within the meaning of HRPC 1.10(a).

In practice

Under this opinion, a conflict that disqualifies one lawyer in the Office of the Public Defender or Federal Public Defender is analyzed as it would be for a private firm: the opinion holds that the office is a firm under HRPC 1.10(a), so the imputation rule of 1.10(a) governs.

Common questions

Q: Is a public defender's office a "firm" for conflict purposes in Hawaii?

A: Yes. The opinion concluded that, for purposes of imputed disqualification resulting from a conflict, the Office of the Public Defender or Federal Public Defender is a firm within the meaning of HRPC 1.10(a).

Q: Which rule governs imputation across the office?

A: Per the opinion, HRPC 1.10(a), the imputed-disqualification rule, applies because the office is treated as a firm.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets HRPC 1.10(a), the rule imputing one lawyer's conflict to others associated in a firm, and treats the Public Defender or Federal Public Defender office as a firm for that purpose. HRPC 1.10 corresponds to Model Rule 1.10.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct (Hawaii; cf. Model Rules):

  • HRPC 1.10(a) (imputation of conflicts within a firm) (cf. Model Rule 1.10)

See also

Source

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

Office of Disciplinary Counsel
Supreme Court, State of Hawaii
1132 Bishop Street, Suite 300
Honolulu, Hawai'i 96813
Telephone (808) 521-4591

FORMAL OPINION NO. 48
(Public Defender Imputed Disqualification)

This Opinion addresses the conflict issue of imputed disqualification of a public defender. For purposes of imputed disqualification resulting from a conflict, the Office of the Public Defender/Federal Public Defender is a firm within the meaning of HRPC 1.10(a).

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai'i, August 26, 2004.

Charles T. Kleintop
Chairperson, Disciplinary Board

Carroll S. Taylor
Chairperson, Opinion Committee

Carole R. Richelieu
Chief Disciplinary Counsel

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 2004 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.