Can my firm sue a city if one of my law partners works full-time as a police officer for that same city?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer asked whether the lawyer or the firm could represent a client in a claim against a municipality that employed another firm partner full-time as a police officer. The opinion analyzed the question under Rules 1.7, 1.10(a), and 8.4(b), drawing on prior opinions about lawyers who hold public office.

The opinion relied on In re Vrdolyak, in which the Illinois Supreme Court held that an alderman who represented clients against the city had a non-waivable conflict because he owed the city undivided loyalty and a fiduciary duty, treating the public body as if it were another client for conflicts purposes. Applying the Criminal Code's definition of "public officer," the opinion concluded the police officer partner holds public office within the meaning of Rule 8.4(b) and Vrdolyak.

The opinion concluded the firm should not accept the representation for several reasons. First, if the partner is a public officer under Vrdolyak, treating the municipality as a client creates a direct conflict under Rule 1.7(a) that consent cannot cure. Second, even if Vrdolyak does not apply, Rule 1.7(b) would bar the representation, because the partner's full-time employment is a material limitation and the partner could not reasonably believe the representation would be unaffected, so consent is unavailable; the opinion found no "personal" exception to Rules 1.7(b) and 1.10(a). Third, it expressed concern that representation by a partner of someone holding an office in the criminal justice system could be seen as seeking more favorable treatment for the claimant, which would violate Rule 8.4(b)(2) if factually correct.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995, 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 (referring to Rules 1.7, 1.10, and 8.4), while noting the specific standards referenced may differ from the 2010 Rules. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a firm sue a city that employs one of its partners as a police officer?

A: The opinion concluded the firm should not. The partner's conflict under Rule 1.7 is imputed to the firm under Rule 1.10(a), and treating the public body like a client, it cannot be cured by consent.

Q: Is a police officer a "public officer" for conflicts purposes?

A: The opinion concluded yes, applying the Criminal Code's definition, so the partner holds public office within the meaning of Rule 8.4(b) and the Vrdolyak conflict analysis.

Q: Does it matter that the conflict is "personal" to the police officer partner?

A: The opinion concluded it does not. It found no "personal" exception to Rule 1.7(b) or to the imputation rule in Rule 1.10(a), so the disqualification reaches the whole firm.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted Rule 1.7 (concurrent conflicts; Model Rule 1.7), Rule 1.10(a) (imputation of conflicts within a firm; Model Rule 1.10), and Rule 8.4(b) (a lawyer holding public office not using it to influence a tribunal for a client; Model Rule 8.4). It applied In re Vrdolyak, which treats a public body as a client for conflicts purposes.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 1.7 (conflict of interest: current clients) / Illinois Rule 1.7
• Model Rule 1.10 (imputation of conflicts) / Illinois Rule 1.10(a)
• Model Rule 8.4 (misconduct) / Illinois Rule 8.4(b)

Cases:

• In re Vrdolyak, 137 Ill. 2d 407, 560 N.E.2d 840 (1990), public official's non-waivable conflict against his public body

Other opinions cited:

• ISBA Opinions 84-11 and 90-17

See also

• ISBA Ethics Op. 94-21: Representing a Client Adverse to a Current Municipal Client
• ISBA Ethics Op. 95-15: Adverse Representation of a Corporate Affiliate
• ISBA Ethics Op. 95-12: No Contact With Represented City Officials

Source

• Landing page: https://www.isba.org/ethics/opinions/9420