Can a law firm that represents the county government and its sheriff and clerk also defend private clients on traffic charges in the county court?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring lawyer asked whether members of his firm could defend long-time clients on traffic-law violations in the county court while the firm also represented the county government and its elected officials, including the clerk of the circuit and county courts, the comptroller, and the sheriff's department.

The committee drew on a line of its prior opinions. In Opinion 72-9 it had found it improper for a firm to bring auto-accident personal-injury claims within a municipality while a firm member prosecuted that municipality's ordinance violations; in Opinions 74-37 and 78-8 it had barred members of a firm representing the local sheriff in civil matters from doing criminal-defense work in the same county; and in Opinion 77-30 it had used the same reasoning to bar a county attorney from representing a county commissioner charged with misuse of office.

Applying that reasoning, the committee concluded the proposed conduct would clearly involve a conflict of interest proscribed by Canon 5. DR 5-105(A) requires a lawyer to decline multiple employment likely to adversely affect his professional judgment for a client, and the only exception, DR 5-105(C), permits multiple representation after full disclosure only when it is obvious the lawyer can adequately represent each interest, which the committee found inapplicable here. The committee added that the proposed multiple representation would create a definite appearance of impropriety contrary to Canon 9, and answered the inquiry in the negative.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1981, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a firm that represents the county also defend traffic cases in county court?

A: The opinion concluded that a firm representing the county government and its officials, including the sheriff's department, may not defend clients on traffic violations in the county court.

Q: What rule did the committee rely on?

A: The opinion concluded the conduct was a conflict proscribed by Canon 5 and DR 5-105(A), and that the DR 5-105(C) exception for multiple representation did not apply.

Q: Did the appearance of impropriety matter?

A: The opinion concluded the multiple representation would create a definite appearance of impropriety contrary to Canon 9.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets the conflict-of-interest rules of CPR Canon 5, DR 5-105(A) and (C), and EC 5-14, together with the appearance-of-impropriety mandate of Canon 9. The conflict analysis corresponds to Model Rule 1.7 (concurrent conflicts of interest).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• CPR Canon 5; EC 5-14; DR 5-105(A), (C); Canon 9 (Model Rule 1.7, concurrent conflicts)

Other opinions cited:

• Fla. Ethics Opinions 72-9, 74-37, 77-30, 78-8

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 96-2: Law Firm Sheriff and Criminal Defense
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 11-1: IV-D Child Support Lawyers Representing the Department

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-81-7/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-81-7-1.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 81-7
February 23, 1981
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.

A law firm may not defend long-time clients on traffic law violations in the county court when the law firm represents the county government and its elected officials, including the clerk of the circuit and county courts, the comptroller and the sheriff's department. Such conduct would involve a conflict of interests and the appearance of impropriety.

CPR: Canon 5, EC 5-14, DR 5-105(A), (C), Canon 9
Opinions: 72-9, 74-37, 77-30, 78-8

Vice Chairman Mead stated the opinion of the committee:

The inquiring lawyer asks whether members of his firm may defend long-time clients on traffic law violations in the county court when his law firm represents the county government and its elected officials, including the clerk of the circuit and county courts, the comptroller and the sheriff's department.

In Opinion 72-9 this Committee found it improper for a law firm to represent litigants seeking personal injury damages arising out of automobile accidents within a municipality when a member of that firm was employed by the municipality to prosecute violations of the municipality's ordinances. In Opinions 74-37 and 78-8 members of a law firm which represented the local sheriff in civil matters could not engage in criminal defense work in the same county because of the possibility of a conflict of interest in violation of DR 5-105. In Opinion 77-30 this Committee used the same reasoning to find it improper for a county attorney to represent a county commissioner charged with misuse of public office.

It is the Committee's opinion that the proposed course of conduct would clearly involve a conflict of interests and is proscribed by Canon 5. DR 5-105(A) requires a lawyer to refuse multiple employment if his professional judgment on behalf of a client will be or is likely to be adversely affected by his representation of another client. This requirement is confirmed by EC 5-14. The only exception to this rule against multiple representation is set forth in DR 5-105(C), which permits such representation, after full disclosure, only if "it is obvious that he can adequately represent the interest of each." We do not believe the facts presented come within this exception. Further, the multiple representation proposed here would create a definite appearance of impropriety contrary to the mandate of Canon 9.

For the above reasons, this inquiry must be answered in the negative.