Can a lawyer employed by a federal agency join a labor union that includes both lawyer and non-lawyer employees of that employer?

Plain-English summary

A member of The Florida Bar asked whether he may ethically join a labor union of lay and attorney employees where the union relates to his employer, a federal agency. The committee concluded such conduct would not be ethical. It relied on Opinion 64-57, which held it improper for a lawyer employed full-time as an assistant city attorney to belong to an association of city employees.

The committee grounded the conclusion in longstanding precedent on divided loyalty, citing Drinker, Legal Ethics, page 160 ("A lawyer may not belong to a labor union which includes persons not lawyers. By so doing he surrenders his power of independent action."), ABA Informal Opinion 267, and ABA Formal Opinion 275, which noted the possibility of conflict between an employer and its union and stressed the lawyer's duty to keep employment information confidential. The committee identified the divided loyalty of the lawyer-employee, between the employer and a union composed of both lawyer and lay employees, as the import of these precedents. It noted but did not address ABA Informal Opinion 986 concerning a salaried lawyer belonging to a union composed entirely of attorneys under stated conditions.

Currency note

This opinion has been superseded by a Board of Governors advisory opinion that follows immediately after Opinion 77-15 at the official source. This opinion was issued in 1977, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules and the superseding opinion before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a government-employed lawyer join a union with non-lawyer co-workers?

A: The opinion concluded a lawyer may not join a union of lay and attorney employees relating to his federal employer, but note that it has been superseded by a Board of Governors advisory opinion.

Q: Why did the committee find union membership improper?

A: The opinion concluded the membership creates a divided loyalty between the lawyer's employer and a union of both lawyer and lay employees, surrendering the lawyer's independent action.

Q: Did the opinion address all-lawyer unions?

A: The opinion noted ABA Informal Opinion 986 on lawyers in a union composed entirely of attorneys, but expressly did not address that subject.

Background and rules framework

The opinion rests on the Code's requirement of independent professional judgment and the avoidance of divided loyalty, drawing on prior Florida and ABA opinions rather than a single cited Disciplinary Rule. The loyalty concern corresponds to Model Rule 1.7 (Florida Rule 4-1.7) on conflicts of interest.

Citations and references

Other authorities cited:

• Florida Ethics Opinion 64-57; ABA Formal Opinion 275; ABA Informal Opinions 267, 986; Drinker, Legal Ethics, p. 160

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 77-25: Public Office Versus Confidential Client Identity
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 77-30: County Attorney Representing an Individual Commissioner

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-77-15/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-77-15-1.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 77-15
October 25, 1977
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
A member of The Florida Bar may not ethically join a labor union of lay and attorney employees if the union relates to his federal employer.
Note: This opinion has been superseded by the Board of Governors advisory opinion that follows immediately after Opinion 77-15.
Opinions: 64-57, ABA Formal 275, ABA Informal 267 and 986
Misc.: Drinker, Legal Ethics, p. 160
Vice Chairman Richman stated the opinion of the committee:
A member of The Florida Bar asks whether he may ethically join a labor union of lay and attorney employees where such union relates to his employer, which is a federal agency.
The Committee believes that such conduct would not be ethical.
Under Opinion 64-57, the Committee held that it was improper for a lawyer, employed full-time as an assistant to [sic] city attorney, to be a member of an association of city employees. The opinion further held that it would be improper for the lawyer to act on behalf of the employees before the city, a matter that is not involved in this inquiry.
The former opinion which is adhered to herein is based on longstanding precedent. Drinker, Legal Ethics, p. 160, states: "A lawyer may not belong to a labor union which includes persons not lawyers. By so doing he surrenders his power of independent action." Similarly, in ABA Informal Opinion 267 it was stated that "a lawyer may not join a union of the employers and employees." ABA Formal Opinion 275, involving a lawyer employed full-time by an insurance company, similarly points out the possibility of a conflict of interest between the company and its union while stressing the importance of a lawyer's obligation to keep in confidence information gained from his employment.
The import of these precedents is the obvious divided loyalty of the lawyer-employee with respect to the employer and his membership in a union composed of both lawyer and lay employees.
The Committee notes, but need not and does not here address the subject of, ABA Informal Opinion 986 as to a lawyer who is a salaried employee of a single client, such as a governmental agency or a corporation, being a member of a union composed entirely of attorneys if certain stated conditions are observed as to complying with provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility.