Can a former assistant city attorney represent a private client in a zoning matter involving that city?

Plain-English summary

The inquirer had been appointed assistant city attorney for a small municipality in 1962, to fill in occasionally for his then partner, the city attorney. The partnership dissolved and his service as assistant city attorney ceased as a factual matter at least three years before the inquiry, though neither he nor the council had formally documented that cessation at the time. He now wished to represent a private client in a zoning matter involving the municipality and had taken the precaution of securing formal council action regarding his withdrawal.

The committee concluded that, provided the inquirer had received no information during his service as assistant city attorney that would be in any way adverse to the city in the present zoning matter, it saw no impropriety in his participating in the matter.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1969, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. It applied the former Canon 6 on conflicting interests. The conflict rules for former government lawyers are now in Rule 4-1.11, and duties to former clients in Rule 4-1.9. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 former city attorney later represent a private client against the city?

A: Under this opinion, yes on these facts, where his service had long ended, his withdrawal was formalized, and he gained no information during that service that would be adverse to the city in the present zoning matter.

Q: What was the decisive factor for the committee?

A: Whether the lawyer had received any information while serving as assistant city attorney that would be adverse to the city in the zoning matter. The committee conditioned its no-impropriety conclusion on the absence of such information.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the former Canon 6 on representing conflicting interests, in the setting of a lawyer who had previously held a municipal appointment. The conflict rules for former government lawyers are now addressed by Rule 4-1.11 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, and duties to former clients by Rule 4-1.9; the Model Rule analogues are Rules 1.11 and 1.9.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canon 6 [Code of Professional Responsibility; former government lawyer now in Rule 4-1.11, former clients in Rule 4-1.9]

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 69-7: Tax Assessor Counsel Switching Sides
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 69-21: City Lawyer Before City Board

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-69-14/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-69-14-1.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 69-14
April 25, 1969
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
A former assistant city attorney who has performed no services during the past three years, has recently secured formal acquiescence in his withdrawal by the city council, and received no information in his former capacity that would be adverse to the city, may now represent a private client in a zoning matter involving the municipality.
Canon: 6
Chairman MacDonald stated the opinion of the committee:
A member of The Florida Bar advises that in 1962 he was appointed as assistant city attorney for a small municipality in order to occasionally serve in place of his then partner, who was the city attorney. The partnership was dissolved, and the services as assistant city attorney ceased as a factual matter at least three years ago, although there was no formal action taken by the council of the municipality or the inquirer to document this cessation at that time.
The inquirer now wishes to represent a private client in a zoning matter involving the municipality and has taken the precaution of securing formal action by the council of the municipality concerning his withdrawal as assistant city attorney.
Provided that the inquirer received no information during the time that he served as assistant city attorney which would be in any way adverse to the city in the present zoning matter, we see no impropriety whatever in the inquirer's participating in the matter.