Ezel / Ethics Opinions / NYSBA
NYSBA May 1, 1975

Can a lawyer serving on a volunteer county charter-revision committee also represent a union negotiating against that county?

Short answer: The opinion concluded that a lawyer on a volunteer citizens' charter-revision committee may also represent a civil-service employees association in negotiations and litigation with the county, because his civic service represents no client and his client buys his services rather than his private opinions; he should disclose the dual role to both the client and the committee.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1975. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current New York Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 1975
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

The committee was asked whether a lawyer who sits on a county charter-revision committee, made up of unpaid volunteer citizens charged with monitoring and recommending changes to a new charter form of county government, may at the same time represent a regional civil-service employees association in negotiations and litigation with that county.

The committee found the dual role not improper. It reasoned that lawyers have long served in citizens' groups advocating better government, and that a lawyer who volunteers in such a cause represents no client to whom he owes a duty of loyalty; he is guided by his own conscience and beliefs. Conversely, when he is retained by a client, he does not surrender his independence of thought or his freedom of expression as a private citizen. Quoting EC 7-17, the committee stressed that loyalty to a client applies only in the discharge of professional duties and implies no obligation to adopt a personal viewpoint favorable to the client; a lawyer may take positions on public issues and espouse legal reforms without regard to any client's individual views.

The committee acknowledged that in a particular case inconsistent positions could harm a client's interest, in which event the usual conflict-of-interest principles (and DR 5-101(A)) would apply. The remedy it identified was disclosure: the lawyer should make complete disclosure to the client, who then decides about the retainer, and should likewise advise the charter-revision committee of his representation of clients in litigation with the county, so members could properly weigh his views (citing EC 5-19). The committee underscored that a client buys the lawyer's expert services, not his private opinions or his silence on public issues.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1975, before New York replaced the Code of Professional Responsibility with the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2009; the personal-interest conflict it analyzes is now governed by Rule 1.7, and a lawyer's participation in law-reform activities affecting client interests is addressed by Rule 6.4. 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, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer on a civic reform committee represent a client opposing the same government?

A: Under this opinion, yes. The committee held that volunteer civic service creates no client-loyalty duty, so the lawyer may also represent a union negotiating with the county.

Q: What did the committee require to manage the dual role?

A: Disclosure to both sides: complete disclosure to the client so it can decide about the retainer, and notice to the charter committee so members can weigh his views.

Q: When would the dual role become a conflict?

A: Per the opinion, if inconsistent positions would actually be detrimental to the client's interest, the ordinary conflict principles and DR 5-101(A) apply.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied EC 7-17 (loyalty to a client does not require adopting the client's personal views) and EC 5-19, against the backdrop of DR 5-101(A)'s personal-interest conflict standard. The current New York analogues are Rule 1.7 (concurrent conflicts, including the lawyer's own interests) and Rule 6.4 (law-reform activities affecting client interests).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • MR 1.7 (conflict of interest; current clients)
  • MR 6.4 (law-reform activities affecting client interests)
  • NY EC 5-19, EC 7-17; DR 5-101(A)

Other opinions cited:

  • ABA Inf. 760 (1964): a lawyer's civic and public-issue activity apart from client representation

See also

Source

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1975 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current New York Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.