Who is the client when a government lawyer enforces child support, and how do conflict rules apply when the same office represents opposing parents?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1993. 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 240 (adopted June 15, 1993) responded to the Office of the Corporation Counsel's Child Support Section, which provides legal assistance for the Title IV-D child-support enforcement program. Depending on whether a custodial parent receives AFDC, the client is sometimes the petitioner and sometimes the Department of Human Services, and the relationships shift as a parent's benefit status or custody changes. The committee accepted the office's "Policy Statement" defining who the client is in each category and addressed the most common conflicts.
On confidentiality, the committee concluded that where the Department is the client, the petitioner may wrongly assume the lawyer is hers and reveal information she thinks is privileged. Because Rule 1.6(i) makes the government lawyer's client the employing agency unless other law provides otherwise, the lawyer must comply with Rule 4.3 by telling such a petitioner that the lawyer represents only the government and by correcting any misunderstanding; failing to do so may require treating the communication as if a client-lawyer relationship existed. The committee concluded the Policy Statement should be given to petitioners, and that they must be made to understand the consequences of not being the client.
On conflicts, the committee concluded that when one office represents two non-AFDC petitioners against the same respondent, Rule 1.7 will usually make it impossible for one lawyer to represent both zealously, and the agency's existing "Conflict of Interest Waiver" was not sufficient under Rule 1.7(c). Because Rule 1.10's imputation does not apply to a government agency (Comment [1]), a second lawyer in the same office may represent the second petitioner so long as the two lawyers do not share information or files. The committee applied the same approach to custody switches, concluding that Rule 1.9 may give a former-client petitioner a veto over the office's later adverse representation unless a different, screened lawyer is assigned, and recommended that the office designate an "Ethics Advisor" to manage these recurring issues.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1993, before the District of Columbia's adoption of the 2007 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. 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, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.
Common questions
Q: Who is the client when a government lawyer enforces child support?
A: Usually the agency, sometimes the petitioner. The committee concluded that under Rule 1.6(i) the government lawyer's client is the employing agency unless other law provides otherwise, and accepted the office's Policy Statement that the petitioner is the client only in non-AFDC cases.
Q: What must the lawyer tell a petitioner who is not the client?
A: That the lawyer represents the government, not her. The committee concluded Rule 4.3 requires the lawyer to avoid implying disinterest, to correct any misunderstanding about the lawyer's role, and to make the petitioner understand the consequences of not being the client.
Q: Can the same office represent two parents seeking support from the same respondent?
A: Only through separate, screened lawyers. The committee concluded that one lawyer usually cannot represent both zealously under Rule 1.7, but because Rule 1.10 imputation does not apply to a government agency, a second lawyer in the office may represent the second petitioner if the two do not share information or files.
Q: What happens when custody switches between the parents?
A: The lawyer must re-analyze who the client is under Rule 1.9. The committee concluded a former-client petitioner may have a veto over the office's later adverse representation unless the office assigns a different, screened lawyer.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interpreted D.C. Rule 1.6 (confidentiality, including Rule 1.6(i) defining the government lawyer's client as the employing agency), Rule 1.7 (conflicts among concurrent clients), Rule 1.9 (duties to former clients), Rule 1.10 (imputed disqualification, which Comment [1] makes inapplicable to government agencies), and Rule 4.3 (dealing with unrepresented persons). It applied these to the federal Title IV-D child-support enforcement scheme.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- D.C. RPC 1.6 / Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality; government lawyer's client)
- D.C. RPC 1.7 / Model Rule 1.7 (conflict of interest: general rule)
- D.C. RPC 1.9 / Model Rule 1.9 (duties to former clients)
- D.C. RPC 1.10 / Model Rule 1.10 (imputed disqualification; government-agency exclusion)
- D.C. RPC 4.3 / Model Rule 4.3 (dealing with unrepresented persons)
Statutes:
- 42 U.S.C. § 651 et seq. (Title IV-D of the Social Security Act; child-support enforcement)
Other opinions cited:
- ABA Informal Op. 89-1528 (June 5, 1989): whether information is protected turns on whether a client-lawyer relationship exists and whether Rule 4.3 misunderstandings were corrected
See also
- DC Ethics Op. 268: Volunteering for the City
- DC Ethics Op. 274: Agency Meetings With Claimants
- ABA Formal Op. 509: Confidential Gov't Information
Source
- Landing page: https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/ethics-opinions-210-present/ethics-opinion-240
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1993 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.