Can a city prosecutor and a part-time public defender form a law partnership, and what cases must they avoid?

Plain-English summary

Attorney A served as a city attorney prosecuting city ordinance violations while also defending criminal cases in private practice; he took no case where the charged acts could also be city ordinance violations or where city police officers initiated or would support the charges. Attorney B, in the same city, contracted with the county as an assistant public defender and similarly avoided state prosecutions tied to that city's ordinances or police. The inquiry asked whether A and B could form a law partnership.

The committee, citing ISBA Opinions 86-13 and 823 as representative of its prior treatment of the question, concluded the facts defined permissible conduct. The two attorneys avoided conflict-of-interest concerns under Rules 1.7 and 1.10 by limiting whom they would represent. The key, the committee said, is not to represent clients charged with violation of the city's ordinances or charged with state violations initiated or supported by that city's police department.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1991, before Illinois adopted the 2010 Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct. The ISBA Board of Governors affirmed the opinion in May 2010 as generally consistent with the 2010 Rules (Rules 1.7 and 1.10), 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 city prosecutor and a part-time public defender be law partners?

A: The opinion concluded they may form a partnership, given the limits each placed on the clients he would represent.

Q: What cases must the partners avoid?

A: The opinion concluded neither may defend clients charged with that city's ordinance violations, or with state charges initiated or supported by that city's police department.

Q: Why does limiting representation resolve the conflict?

A: The opinion concluded that the limits address the Rule 1.7 conflict and the Rule 1.10 imputation that would otherwise arise from one partner prosecuting for the city while the other defends against city-connected charges.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Rule 1.7 (conflicts of interest) to each lawyer's combination of public and private roles and Rule 1.10 (imputation of conflicts within a firm), concluding the partners' self-imposed limits on representation prevented a disqualifying conflict (Model Rules 1.7, 1.10).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 1.7 (conflicts of interest) / Illinois Rule 1.7
• Model Rule 1.10 (imputation of conflicts of interest) / Illinois Rule 1.10

Other opinions cited:

• ISBA Opinions 86-13 and 823: representative prior treatments of part-time prosecutor and defender conflicts.

See also

• ISBA Ethics Op. 90-29: Part-Time Prosecutor Representing Prisoners
• ISBA Ethics Op. 90-24: Married Lawyers on Differing Sides
• ISBA Ethics Op. 90-17: City Council Member and the Lawyer's Firm

Source

• Landing page: https://www.isba.org/ethics/opinions/9034