May a lawyer sharing office space with lawyers who appear in municipal court serve as an assistant municipal judge?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer renting space from other attorneys asked whether service as an assistant municipal judge created a conflict when those attorneys appeared in municipal court. The lawyer shared a library, copier, and fax, but had separate secretarial support, file storage, and telephone.

The opinion described the arrangement as apparently genuine office sharing on those facts. It concluded that the lawyer could continue the arrangement while serving as assistant municipal judge without an attorney conflict, assuming that characterization held. The opinion cautioned that inadequate confidentiality controls, unclear office signs, or joint advertising could change the conclusion. It separately stated that Supreme Court Rule 2 governs the lawyer's judicial conduct and directed inquiry to the judicial discipline commission on that rule.

Currency note

This 1996 opinion predates Missouri's 2007 amendments to its Rules of Professional Conduct. An official reference note identifies July 1, 2007 amendments to Rules 4-1.9 and 4-1.10. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context and verify current rules before relying on it.

Common questions

Q: Did the shared office itself create an attorney conflict?

A: The opinion said no, assuming the described arrangement was a genuine office sharing arrangement.

Q: What facts could change that characterization?

A: Inadequate confidentiality controls, signs that obscure the firms' separation, or joint advertising.

Q: Did the opinion decide the lawyer's judicial conduct obligations?

A: No. It identified Supreme Court Rule 2 as governing the assistant municipal judge's conduct and directed the lawyer to seek an opinion from the Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline of Judges.

Background and rules framework

The answer turns on whether the arrangement is genuine office sharing. The opinion did not identify a numbered lawyer conflict rule. It identified Supreme Court Rule 2, the Code of Judicial Conduct, for the separate judicial role.

Citations and references

Judicial conduct rules:

• Missouri Supreme Court Rule 2 (Code of Judicial Conduct)

See also

• Missouri Informal Op. 990120: Office sharing and municipal defense
• Missouri Informal Op. 960219: CPA office sharing and confidentiality

Source

• Landing page: https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/960093/

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION: Attorney´s office is part of an office sharing arrangement. Attorney wants to become an assistant municipal judge. Some of the other attorneys in the office sharing arrangement appear in municipal court. The office sharing arrangement is such that Attorney rents space from the other attorneys. Attorney shares the library, copier and fax machine. Attorney has separate secretarial support, file storage and telephone. Would this be a conflict? ANSWER: Based on Attorney´s description of the office arrangement, it sounds as though it is a true office sharing arrangement. However, there are always more factors that can affect that conclusion. If, for example, Attorney does not have adequate controls to maintain confidentiality, if the office and signs are not clearly marked so that the public will understand the separation of the firms or if Attorney engages in joint advertising, the conclusion in that regard might change. Assuming that Attorney´s arrangement is an office sharing arrangement, it will not involve a conflict of interest for Attorney as an attorney to continue in this arrangement while also serving as an assistant municipal judge. As an assistant municipal judge, Attorney´s conduct will also be governed by Supreme Court Rule 2, the Code of Judicial Conduct. Attorney should contact the Commission on Retirement, Removal and Discipline of Judges for an opinion under that rule.