Can a lawyer who won before a zoning board keep representing the client on appeal to defend the board's decision?

Plain-English summary

The committee was asked whether an attorney who represented a party before a Planning and Zoning Board could ethically appear in subsequent appellate proceedings to sustain the action of that administrative body, where the body's action was consistent with the attorney's original representation. The committee answered yes.

The opinion contains no separate analysis; the committee noted that the opinion consists of the question and the answer. In effect, continuing to represent the same party to defend a favorable administrative result, consistent with the position the attorney originally took, presented no ethical obstacle.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1971 under the former Code of Professional Responsibility, before the Kentucky Bar Association's 1990 adoption of the Rules of Professional Conduct (SCR 3.130) and the substantial 2009 revisions to those rules. The conflict-of-interest framework that would govern such continued representation today is Model Rule 1.7, with Kentucky's counterpart at SCR 3.130(1.7). Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current rules before relying on any specific rule or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer who prevailed before a zoning board stay on to defend that result on appeal?

A: Yes. The committee concluded the attorney may appear in the appellate proceedings to sustain the board's action where it is consistent with the original representation.

Q: Did the committee explain its reasoning?

A: No. The committee stated the opinion consisted only of the question and the answer, without further analysis.

Background and rules framework

The opinion addressed whether a lawyer may continue representing a party to defend an administrative ruling consistent with the lawyer's original position. The opinion cited no specific rule; the modern framework for evaluating such continued representation is Model Rule 1.7 (concurrent conflicts of interest), with Kentucky's counterpart at SCR 3.130(1.7).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Code of Professional Responsibility (continued representation); modern analog Model Rule 1.7

See also

• KBA Ethics Op. E-37: County Attorney Partner Before the Zoning Commission
• KBA Ethics Op. E-42: Representing the Successor Corporation Against the Prior Owner

Source

• Landing page: https://kybar.org/For-Members/Rules-Ethics-Information/Ethics-Opinions
• Original PDF: https://kybar.org/Portals/0/Admin/Ethics%20Opinions/KBA_E-045.pdf

Original opinion text

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

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
Ethics Opinion KBA E-45
Issued: April 1971

This opinion was decided under the Code of Professional Responsibility,
which was in effect from 1971 to 1990. Lawyers should consult the current
version of the Rules of Professional Conduct and Comments, SCR 3.130
(available at http://www.kybar.org), before relying on this opinion.

Question:

May an attorney representing a party before a Planning and Zoning Board
ethically appear in subsequent proceedings at appellate levels undertaking
to sustain the action of the administrative body where the action of the
administrative body is consistent with the original representation of the
attorney?

Answer:

Yes.

OPINION
(The Opinion consists of the above question and answer.)

Note to Reader
This ethics opinion has been formally adopted by the Board of Governors of the
Kentucky Bar Association under the provisions of Kentucky Supreme Court Rule 3.530
(or its predecessor rule). The Rule provides that formal opinions are advisory only.