Can a lawyer volunteer for the D.C. Corporation Counsel while also representing private clients against the City, and oppose the same agency she works for?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1996. 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 268 (adopted October 31, 1996) reconsidered two conditions from Opinion 92 (1980), which had approved, under the former Code of Professional Responsibility, a program in which private attorneys volunteered to help the City manage its crowded civil docket. The intervening 1991 adoption of the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct prompted the question whether those conditions still held.
The committee's central change concerned Opinion 92's absolute prohibition: that a lawyer could never volunteer for a particular City agency while handling a private matter against that same agency, or a "closely related" matter, even with client consent. The committee explained that this flat bar had been derived from the "appearance of impropriety" standard of former Canon 9, which the Rules of Professional Conduct dropped entirely. Under the current rules, conflicts are generally waivable; the only conflict that cannot be cured by consent is taking adverse positions for two clients in the same matter (Rule 1.7(a)). So the committee concluded that a lawyer may represent a private client against a City agency while simultaneously representing that same agency in an unrelated matter, provided both the private client and the agency are informed of the conflict and consent under Rule 1.7(b)(1) and (c). The committee stressed that whether the lawyer volunteers or is paid is irrelevant to the analysis.
The committee also rejected Opinion 92's assumption that the entire City and all its agencies must always be treated as one client. Drawing on Rule 1.2's client-autonomy principles, it concluded that the identity of the government client is established in the first instance between the lawyer and responsible government officials, and may be a single constituent agency rather than the City as a whole. Where the lawyer opposes a different agency that is not her client, Rule 1.7(b)(1) is not triggered and client notice and consent are not required on that basis. But the committee cautioned that Rule 1.7(b)(2)-(4) may still require consent if the lawyer's representation of one client would be, or likely would be, adversely affected by the other representation, or if her independent professional judgment would be affected by duties to third parties or her own interests. The lawyer must respect each client's reasonable expectation, protected by Rule 1.7, of a conflict-free representation.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1996, 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: Can a lawyer volunteer for the City and still sue the City for private clients?
A: Yes, subject to Rule 1.7. The committee concluded that a lawyer may give volunteer assistance to the Corporation Counsel and continue representing private clients against the City, with conflicts handled under Rule 1.7.
Q: Can the lawyer oppose the very agency she volunteers for?
A: In an unrelated matter, yes, with consent. The committee concluded that the old absolute prohibition is gone, so a lawyer may oppose her own City agency client in an unrelated matter if both clients are informed and consent under Rule 1.7(b)(1) and (c).
Q: Is the City always treated as a single client?
A: No. The committee concluded the government client may be a single constituent agency rather than the whole City, so opposing a different agency that is not the lawyer's client does not trigger Rule 1.7(b)(1).
Q: Is consent ever still required when opposing a non-client agency?
A: Possibly. The committee concluded that even where Rule 1.7(b)(1) does not apply, Rule 1.7(b)(2)-(4) may require consent if one representation would adversely affect the other or the lawyer's independent judgment.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interpreted D.C. Rule 1.7 (conflicts of interest, including the non-waivable same-matter bar of Rule 1.7(a), the own-client conflict of Rule 1.7(b)(1), and the material-limitation conflicts of Rule 1.7(b)(2)-(4)) together with Rule 1.2 (scope of representation and client autonomy in defining the client). It reconsidered Opinion 92 in light of the 1991 Rules' elimination of the "appearance of impropriety" standard.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- D.C. RPC 1.7 / Model Rule 1.7 (conflicts of interest; waivability; government-client conflicts)
- D.C. RPC 1.2 / Model Rule 1.2 (scope of representation; defining the client)
Other opinions cited:
- D.C. Ethics Op. 92 (1980) (reconsidered and modified by this opinion)
See also
- DC Ethics Op. 313: Continuing to Represent a Client After Government Service
- DC Ethics Op. 308: Lawyers Leaving Private Practice for Government Service
- DC Ethics Op. 365: Government Lawyer Furlough Conflict
Source
- Landing page: https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/ethics-opinions-210-present/ethics-opinion-268
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1996 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.