Ezel / Ethics Opinions / ISBA
ISBA 2013

Can a lawyer who owns a stake in and chairs a bank serve as city attorney for a municipality that banks there?

Short answer: No. The lawyer's ownership and board role trigger the Rule 1.8(a) business-transaction safeguards, and the representation is a Rule 1.7(a)(2) material-limitation conflict. The opinion concludes the conflict is so significant it is nonconsentable, so the municipality cannot waive it, and the lawyer cannot fix it by abstaining from bank-related matters.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2013. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 2013
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

A lawyer owns an 8% equity interest in a small community bank and serves as its chairman of the board. A municipality deposits funds, borrows money, and otherwise deals routinely with the bank. The lawyer has been appointed city attorney for the municipality. The lawyer asks whether the conflicts can be waived by informed consent, and whether the lawyer can avoid them by abstaining from advice or action on matters between the municipality and the bank. The opinion expressly declines to address the Illinois Municipal Code and the Public Officer Prohibited Activities Act, which it notes carry significant sanctions, and answers only under the Rules of Professional Conduct.

On Rule 1.8, the opinion holds that although the rule sets no precise ownership threshold, the lawyer's 8% stake and board chairmanship make Rule 1.8(a) applicable, because the lawyer has a financial and reputational interest in steering business to the bank (citing disciplinary cases such as Imming and Twohey). Lawyer-client business transactions are presumptively fraudulent in Illinois (Monco v. Janus), so they are allowed only if the transaction is fair and fully disclosed in writing, the client is advised in writing to seek independent counsel and given a chance to do so, and the client gives written informed consent. The opinion cautions that even with consent, not all conflicts are consentable, and that some bank-municipality transactions (such as negotiated loans) could not be consented to.

On Rule 1.7, the opinion holds the lawyer's fiduciary duties to the bank and personal financial stake create a significant risk that representation of the municipality would be materially limited under Rule 1.7(a)(2), a concurrent conflict (citing ISBA Op. 02-01 and Restatement § 135). It concludes the Rule 1.7(b) exceptions are unavailable: the conflict is nonconsentable under Rule 1.7(b)(1) and (4) because the municipality's interests cannot be adequately protected when its lawyer has a significant interest in an adverse party it must negotiate with at arm's length, and may also be nonconsentable under Rule 1.7(b)(2) if it would violate the municipal statutes.

On abstention, the opinion holds that "abstention" is not a concept in the Rules; the lawyer simply declining to participate in bank-municipality matters cannot substitute for satisfying Rule 1.7(b), especially where the conflict is nonconsentable. It analogizes to ISBA Opinions 12-12 and 12-13, which held that "recusal" does not cure an imputed government-client conflict. The opinion concludes the conflicts are so significant they are nonconsentable and bar the representation, and that abstaining is insufficient.

In practice

The opinion holds that a lawyer who owns a significant stake in and chairs a bank must satisfy Rule 1.8(a)'s written-disclosure, independent-counsel, and written-consent requirements to represent a municipality that transacts with the bank, but that the representation is also a Rule 1.7(a)(2) material-limitation conflict. It concludes that conflict is nonconsentable under Rule 1.7(b)(1) and (4) (and possibly (b)(2)), so the municipality cannot waive it and the representation is barred, and that the lawyer cannot cure it by abstaining from bank-related matters. The opinion expressly declines to opine on the Illinois Municipal Code or the Public Officer Prohibited Activities Act.

Common questions

Q: Does owning part of a bank and chairing its board trigger Rule 1.8?

A: Yes. The opinion concludes an 8% stake plus board chairmanship makes Rule 1.8(a) applicable, given the lawyer's financial and reputational incentive to steer the municipality's business to the bank.

Q: Can the municipality consent to the conflict?

A: No. The opinion concludes the Rule 1.7(a)(2) conflict is nonconsentable under Rule 1.7(b)(1) and (4) because the municipality's interests cannot be adequately protected against a lawyer with a significant interest in a party it deals with at arm's length.

Q: Can the lawyer fix it by abstaining from bank-related matters?

A: No. The opinion holds "abstention" is not a Rules concept and cannot substitute for a valid Rule 1.7(b) waiver, analogizing to the "recusal" rejected in ISBA Opinions 12-12 and 12-13.

Q: Does the opinion address the municipal-conflict statutes?

A: No. The opinion expressly provides no opinion on the Illinois Municipal Code or the Public Officer Prohibited Activities Act and addresses only the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Illinois Rule 1.8(a) (business transactions with clients; Model Rule 1.8) and Rule 1.7 (concurrent conflicts; Model Rule 1.7), focusing on the Rule 1.7(a)(2) material-limitation standard and the Rule 1.7(b) consentability limits. It relies on Illinois disciplinary precedent treating lawyer-client business transactions as presumptively fraudulent and on prior ISBA opinions holding that recusal or abstention does not cure a conflict.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Illinois RPC 1.8(a) (business transactions with clients) / MR 1.8
  • Illinois RPC 1.7 (concurrent conflicts; material limitation; consentability) / MR 1.7

Statutes:

  • Illinois Municipal Code, 65 ILCS 5 et seq.; Public Officer Prohibited Activities Act, 50 ILCS 105 et seq. (referenced; not opined on)

Cases:

  • In re Imming, 131 Ill. 2d 239, 545 N.E.2d 715 (1989), discipline for soliciting client investment in lawyer's company
  • In re Twohey, 191 Ill. 2d 75, 727 N.E.2d 1028 (2000), discipline for soliciting client investment where lawyer was general counsel
  • Monco v. Janus, 222 Ill. App. 3d 280, 583 N.E.2d 575 (1st Dist. 1991), lawyer-client business transactions presumptively fraudulent

Other authorities:

  • Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 135 (2000)

Other opinions cited:

  • ISBA Opinions 02-01, 12-12, 12-13

See also

Source

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 2013 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.