Does a lawyer's part-time employment by a university bar his firm from defending a former university employee in an unrelated criminal case?

Plain-English summary

A general-practice firm had two lawyers who taught part-time at a university under individual employment contracts that incorporated university regulations barring any employee from acting in a capacity adverse to the university. The firm had previously represented students in disciplinary matters and employees in civil-service matters, apparently with the university's consent or without objection. The firm then undertook to defend a terminated civil-service employee in a criminal proceeding. The university's civil-service director told the firm the contract provision created a disqualifying conflict, whether the representation was handled by a current university-employee lawyer or any other firm member.

The committee analyzed the question under former Rule 5-101, which (except with the client's consent after full disclosure) barred a lawyer from accepting employment when his professional judgment would be or reasonably might be affected by his own financial, business, property, or personal interest. The parties to the criminal case were the State and the terminated employee; nothing in the facts showed an attorney-client relationship between the firm and the university, so the criminal representation itself created no conflict. Citing Opinion 87-4 (public defenders may represent private clients against the employing county after consent following full disclosure), the committee concluded that if the lawyers' independent professional judgment was not adversely affected by the university employment, and the client consented after full disclosure, the representation was professionally proper. The committee declined to construe the lawyers' employment contracts, calling that beyond its scope.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in May 1990, under the former Illinois Code of Professional Responsibility and before Illinois adopted the 1990 (and later 2010) Rules of Professional Conduct. The ISBA Board of Governors affirmed the opinion in May 2010 as generally consistent with the 2010 Rules (Rule 1.7), while cautioning that the specific standards referenced may differ from the 2010 Rules. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer who teaches part-time at a university represent a client adverse to that university?

A: The opinion concluded yes, where there is no attorney-client relationship with the university and the lawyer's independent professional judgment is not adversely affected, after the client consents following full disclosure.

Q: Does an employment contract that bars acting "adverse to the university" automatically disqualify the lawyer's whole firm?

A: Per the opinion, the contract provision did not create a professional-conduct conflict on these facts; the committee treated the question as one of the lawyer's personal interest under former Rule 5-101, curable by client consent, and declined to interpret the contract itself.

Q: Why did a personal-interest conflict not bar the criminal representation?

A: The opinion reasoned that the parties to the criminal case were the State and the terminated employee, not the university, so the representation was not directly adverse to a client; any effect of the employment on the lawyer's judgment was a Rule 5-101 personal-interest matter the client could waive after full disclosure.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied former Illinois Code Rule 5-101, the personal-interest conflict rule requiring client consent after full disclosure where the lawyer's own financial, business, property, or personal interest may affect his professional judgment. The Board's 2010 affirmation maps that analysis to current Illinois Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7, which corresponds to ABA Model Rule 1.7.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Illinois Code of Professional Responsibility Rule 5-101 (former Code, applied in the opinion)
• Illinois RPC 1.7(b) (2010 equivalent per the Board's affirmation)
• MR 1.7 (conflicts of interest)

Other opinions cited:

• ISBA Opinion No. 87-4: public defenders may represent private clients against the employing county after consent following full disclosure

See also

• ISBA Ethics Op. 89-17: Who Is the Client When an Insurer's Staff Lawyer Defends the Insured
• ISBA Ethics Op. 89-14: Lawyer Who Is Also an Insurance Agent

Source

• Landing page: https://www.isba.org/ethics/opinions/8918