Can an associate at a firm that sometimes represents a city serve on that city's Civil Service Commission?

Plain-English summary

The Committee addressed whether an active associate of a law firm may serve on a city's Civil Service Commission when the firm has represented, or may in the future represent, authorities, districts, boards, and other public entities affiliated with the city, and whether such service would violate any Rule of Professional Conduct.

The opinion concluded that Rules 1.7 (conflict of interest), 1.10 (imputed disqualification), and 1.11 (successive government and private employment) are determinative. With the understanding that the firm's representation does not extend into matters actually touching the Civil Service Commission, such as proceedings from, appeals to, or other challenges to the Commission's actions, no Rule of Professional Conduct would be violated by appointing a firm associate to the Commission. The opinion treated compliance with Rules 1.7, 1.10, and 1.11 as something the lawyer and firm must observe as specific issues arise.

The opinion added that both the firm and the associate should keep in mind Rule 8.4, which makes it professional misconduct for a lawyer to state or imply an ability to influence a government agency or official improperly. With those qualifications, the Committee found it permissible for a firm member to serve on the city's Civil Service Commission even though the firm may represent the city on various matters.

Currency note

The official header records “RENDERED December 15, 1989” and “AMENDED April 06, 2013” (opinion text). This page reproduces the amended version. Later rule amendments or opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify current rules before relying on a specific requirement.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer whose firm represents a city sit on that city's Civil Service Commission?

A: The opinion concluded yes, as long as the firm's work does not extend into matters actually touching the Commission and the lawyer and firm comply with the conflict rules as issues come up.

Q: What kinds of matters would create a problem?

A: Per the opinion, matters actually touching the Commission, including proceedings from, appeals to, or other challenges to the Commission's actions, are the line; the firm's representation should not reach those.

Q: Which rules govern this situation?

A: The opinion identified Rules 1.7, 1.10, and 1.11 as determinative, and pointed to Rule 8.4 on not implying an improper ability to influence a government agency or official.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Mississippi Rules 1.7 (conflicts of interest), 1.10 (imputed disqualification), 1.11 (successive government and private employment), and 8.4 (misconduct), corresponding to Model Rules 1.7, 1.10, 1.11, and 8.4. It frames the question as a conflicts analysis bounded by whether the firm's city work overlaps with the Commission's matters, to be applied case by case.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct (Mississippi; cf. Model Rules):

• MRPC 1.7 (conflict of interest: general rule) (cf. Model Rule 1.7).
• MRPC 1.10 (imputed disqualification) (cf. Model Rule 1.10).
• MRPC 1.11 (successive government and private employment) (cf. Model Rule 1.11).
• MRPC 8.4 (misconduct; implying improper influence) (cf. Model Rule 8.4).

See also

• MS Bar Ethics Op. 188: City Attorney Suing a Municipality in the Same Liability Pool
• MS Bar Ethics Op. 226: Former Chancellor Representing Parties in His Cases

Source

• Landing page: https://web.archive.org/web/20210501012754/https://www.msbar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/formal-opinions/169/
• Original PDF: https://web.archive.org/web/20210512025501/https://www.msbar.org/media/1049/et_op_169-amended.pdf
• Note: The Mississippi Bar no longer hosts its ethics opinions on a public page; it now provides them to members through vLex Fastcase (Bar ethics opinions page). The links above are Internet Archive copies of the Bar's own pages.

Original opinion text

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

ETHICS OPINION NO. 169

OF THE MISSISSIPPI BAR

RENDERED December 15, 1989

AMENDED April 06, 2013

CONFLICT OF INTEREST - GOVERNEMNT ATTORNEY - Employee of law firm may serve as member of the Civil Service Commission of a City even though, from time to time, the firm represents the City.

The Ethics Committee of The Mississippi Bar has been asked to render an opinion as to whether and under what circumstances an active Associate of a law firm may serve as a member of the Civil Service Commission when the firm has in the past, or may in the future, represent authorities, districts, boards and other public entities affiliated with the City that directly or indirectly affect the City, and whether serving as a member of the Civil Service Commission under the hereinabove stated conditions would violate any Rule of Professional Conduct.

Rules 1.7 (Conflict of Interest: General Rule), 1.10 (Imputed Disqualification: General Rule) and 1.11 (Successive Government in Private Employment), of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct are determinative of the issues. With the understanding that the law firm's representation does not extend into matters actually touching the Civil Service Commission (for example, proceedings from, appeals to, or other challenges to actions of the Civil Service Commission), no Rule of Professional Conduct would be violated by the appointment of an Associate of a law firm to the Civil Service Commission of the City.

Rule 1.7 of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct provides generally that a lawyer shall not represent a client where the representation would be adverse to other clients. It is assumed that, in pursuing the duties of the Commission and in the practice of law, the lawyer would comply with Rule 1.7 as specific issues were presented.

Rule 1.10 of the Mississippi Rules of Professional Conduct provides generally that no lawyer in a firm shall knowingly represent a client when any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so. It is assumed that, in pursuing the duties of the Commission and in the practice of law, the lawyer and the firm would comply with Rule 1.10 as specific issues were presented.

Rule 1.11 provides generally that a lawyer should not represent a private client in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a public officer or employee. It is assumed that, in pursuing the duties of the Commission and in the practice of law, the lawyer and the firm would comply with Rule 1.11 as specific issues were presented.

Finally, both the law firm and the Associate being considered for membership in the Civil Service Commission should keep in mind Rule 8.4, which provides that "[i]t is professional misconduct for a lawyer to state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official."

With the foregoing qualifications in mind, the Ethics Committee finds that it is permissible for a member of the law firm to serve on the Civil Service Commission of the city, even though the firm may represent the city with respect to various matters