Can a lawyer elected to the state legislature keep representing public bodies created by special acts of that legislature?

Plain-English summary

A member of The Florida Bar represented two public bodies created by special acts of the Florida Legislature and was considering seeking election to the Florida House of Representatives. He asked whether, if elected, he could continue to represent the public bodies, given that he would have control over local legislation that could be processed on their behalf.

The committee concluded that on election as a Representative, the lawyer would be required to give his undivided loyalty to his public office and could not accept any law business that would create a conflict between his duties as a lawyer and as a public officer. It followed that, upon election, the lawyer could not ethically continue representing the public bodies. The committee cited its former Opinion 67-5 (since withdrawn) for the point that the public cannot waive a conflict of interest of this kind. It expressed no opinion on whether a different result might obtain if the lawyer declined all legislative participation in matters involving the two public bodies.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1973, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. It applied the former Code of Professional Responsibility, which has since been replaced. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current Rules 4-1.7 and 4-1.11 before relying on any specific requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could the lawyer keep representing the public bodies after being elected?

A: Under this opinion, no. The committee concluded the dual role would create a conflict between his duties as a lawyer and as a public officer.

Q: Could the public bodies consent to waive the conflict?

A: No. The committee, citing Opinion 67-5, stated that the public cannot waive a conflict of interest of this kind.

Q: Did the committee address declining to participate in their legislation?

A: It declined to decide that. The committee expressed no opinion on whether the result would differ if the lawyer abstained from all legislative participation in matters involving the two public bodies.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the former Code of Professional Responsibility's conflict-of-interest principles to a lawyer-legislator, drawing on prior Opinion 67-5. In current Florida practice the subject corresponds to Rule 4-1.7 (conflicts of interest, current clients) and Rule 4-1.11 (special conflicts for current and former government officers and employees); the Model Rule analogues are 1.7 and 1.11.

Citations and references

Other opinions cited:

• Florida Opinion 67-5 (since withdrawn): the public cannot waive a conflict of this kind

See also

No sibling opinions yet indexed.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-73-19/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-73-19-1.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 73-19
July 17, 1973
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
A lawyer elected to the Florida Legislature may not continue to represent public bodies created by special acts of the legislature. Such legal activity, if continued, would create a conflict of interest between his duties as a lawyer and as a public official.
Opinion: 67-5
Vice Chairman Daniels stated the opinion of the committee:
A member of The Florida Bar represents two public bodies created by Special Acts of the Florida Legislature and contemplates seeking election to the Florida House of Representatives. The inquiring lawyer asks:
Whether, if elected, I can continue to represent the public bodies or would there be a conflict of interest due to the fact that I would have control over local legislation which could be processed in behalf of the public bodies?
On election as a Representative, the lawyer would be required to give his undivided loyalty to his public office and could not accept any law business which would create a conflict of interest between his duties as a lawyer and as a public officer. Consequently, upon election, the lawyer could not ethically continue representation of the public bodies. Our former opinion 67-5 [since withdrawn] points out that the public cannot waive a conflict of interest such as that here involved. The Committee expresses no opinion as to whether a different result might obtain if the lawyer declined all legislative participation in matters involving the two public bodies.