May a lawyer who also serves as a county commissioner try cases before circuit judges whose budget and salary the county commission controls?

Plain-English summary

The committee was asked whether a member of the bar who was also a county commissioner could actively try cases before a circuit court whose space allotment, departmental budget, and supplemental salary were controlled by the county commission of which the lawyer was a member. The committee found no impropriety in the practice. It reasoned that to hold otherwise would mean that members of the legislature, who have control over judges' salaries and other features of practice, would be unable to practice at all. The committee acknowledged that a judge could possibly be influenced by the commissioner's ability to affect his work conditions and salary, but it considered the probabilities so slight that no ruling should be made against the practice.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1959, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. It applied former Canon 6 of the Canons of Professional Ethics; conflicts of interest are now addressed by Rule 4-1.7 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Model Rule 1.7). Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current rules before relying on any specific requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a county commissioner who practices law appear before judges the commission funds?

A: In this opinion, yes. The committee found no impropriety even though the county commission controlled the court's space allotment, departmental budget, and supplemental salary.

Q: Why didn't the committee see a disqualifying conflict?

A: It reasoned that barring the practice would also bar legislators, who control judges' salaries and conditions, from practicing at all, and that although influence was theoretically possible, the probabilities were so slight that no prohibition was warranted.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied former Canon 6 of the Canons of Professional Ethics. Conflicts of interest are now addressed by Rule 4-1.7 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Model Rule 1.7). The committee's analysis turned on the remoteness of any actual influence and on the analogy to legislators who control judicial salaries and conditions.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canon 6 [Canons of Professional Ethics; see current Rule 4-1.7]

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 62-5: A Partner Practicing Before an Appointed Municipal Judge
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 71-12: A City Councilman Defending Clients Against City Police
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 69-21: A City Lawyer Before the Governing Board

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-59-10/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-59-10-1.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 59-10
November 25, 1959
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
It is not improper for an attorney who is also a county Commissioner to practice before circuit judges even though the county commission exercises control of the court's space allotment, budget and supplemental salary.
Canon: 6
Chairman Holcomb stated the opinion of the committee:
The following question was presented to the Committee:
"Is it proper for a member of the Bar, who is also a County Commissioner, to actively try cases before a Circuit Court whose allotment of space, departmental budget and supplemental salary are controlled by the County Commission of which the particular member of the Bar is a member?"
We find no impropriety in such action on the part of the County Commissioner. To hold otherwise would be to rule that members of the Legislature, who have control over salaries and other features of practice before circuit and other judges, would be unable to practice at all.
Admittedly, it would be possible for a judge to be influenced by the ability of the attorney in his capacity as a County Commissioner to influence his work conditions and salary, but we feel that the probabilities are so slight that no ruling should be made against such practice.