May the law partner of a city commissioner who appoints the municipal judge practice before that municipal court?

Plain-English summary

A member was a city commissioner whose duties included appointing department heads, including the city judge. He did not himself handle cases before the municipal court, and asked whether it would be proper for his partner to represent clients before that court while he served on the city commission.

The committee noted it had held on a number of occasions that a member of a governmental body empowered to appoint judges may not practice before the court to which the appointments were made. Although it knew of no decisions directly in point, it concluded it would likewise be improper for a partner of such an official to practice before the appointed court. Citing Drinker, Legal Ethics, beginning at page 103, on the duty not to represent conflicting interests under Canon 6, the committee said Drinker's observations point to the principle that "a lawyer may not do what his partner may not do," and that the spirit of the Canons required applying that principle here, particularly because the partner was apparently a relative.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1962, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. The opinion applied former Canon 6 of the Canons of Professional Ethics; conflicts of interest, their imputation among partners, and the special rules for government officers are now addressed by Rules 4-1.7, 4-1.10, and 4-1.11 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Model Rules 1.7, 1.10, and 1.11). Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Could the commissioner's partner appear before the municipal court?

A: No. The committee concluded it would be improper for the partner of an official who appoints the municipal judges to practice before those judges.

Q: Why extend the bar to the partner when the official himself stayed out of that court?

A: The committee applied the principle that a lawyer may not do what his partner may not do, drawing on Drinker's discussion of conflicting interests under Canon 6 and noting the partner was apparently a relative.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied former Canon 6 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, on conflicting interests, as discussed in Drinker, Legal Ethics, at page 103. The committee extended the conflict that disqualified the appointing official to his partner. Those duties are now addressed by Rule 4-1.7 (conflicts), Rule 4-1.10 (imputation), and Rule 4-1.11 (former and current government officers) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Model Rules 1.7, 1.10, and 1.11).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canon 6 [Canons of Professional Ethics; see current Rules 4-1.7, 4-1.10, 4-1.11]

Other authorities:

• Drinker, Legal Ethics, p. 103

See also

No sibling opinions yet indexed.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-62-5/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-62-5-1.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 62-5
July 2, 1962
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
It would be improper for the partner of a municipal officer having power to appoint municipal judges to practice before such judges.
Canon: 6
Vice-Chairman Smith stated the opinion of the committee:
A member of The Florida Bar submits an inquiry wherein he states that he is a member of the City Commission of a Florida city, and as such his duties as city commissioner involve appointment of department heads including the city judge. He states that, under the circumstances, he does not handle cases before the municipal court of the city. He inquires, however, whether it would be proper for his partner to represent clients before that court while he is serving on the city commission.
This Committee has on a number of occasions held that it was improper for a member of a governmental body empowered to appoint judges to practice before the Court to which appointments were made. Although we are aware of no decisions directly in point, it is likewise our opinion that it would be improper for a partner of such official to practice before the appointed court. In Drinker, Legal Ethics, beginning at page 103, there is a discussion of the duty of attorneys not to represent conflicting interests. This duty arises pursuant to the provisions of Canon 6 of the Canons of Professional Ethics. Drinker's observations clearly point to a principle that a "a lawyer may not do what his partner may not do." We feel that the spirit of the Canons requires application of this principle to the situation presented. This would appear to be particularly so inasmuch as the partner is apparently a relative.