Could a lawyer represent debtors before a bankruptcy Conciliation Commissioner while remaining a law partner of the lawyer who held that office?

Plain-English summary

Partners A and B practiced law together. A was appointed Conciliation Commissioner for his county under Section 75 of the Bankruptcy Act and accepted, while the partnership continued. The firm had represented numerous farmers defending foreclosure actions, many of whom were eligible for Section 75 relief and wished to retain B to file petitions and represent them before the court or the commissioner; other debtors not previously represented by the firm also wished to retain B. The inquiry asked whether B could properly represent any such debtor, including former foreclosure clients of the firm, in Section 75 proceedings.

The Board concluded that as long as A and B continued in partnership and A occupied the position of Conciliation Commissioner, B could not with propriety represent debtors under Section 75. It reasoned that the Conciliation Commissioner is an officer of the court charged with important functions involving discretionary powers, and that for B to represent debtors under those circumstances would justly bring reproach upon both A and B and reflect on the dignity and honor of the profession and the administration of justice.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1934, decades before Oklahoma replaced its original Rules of Professional Conduct (patterned on the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics) with the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (adopted 1988) and the later Ethics 2000 revisions. It also turned on Section 75 of the Bankruptcy Act, a Depression-era farm-debtor provision long since repealed. Subsequent rule and statutory changes and 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Could a lawyer appear before a bankruptcy commissioner who was his own law partner?

A: No. The opinion held that while the partnership continued and one partner served as Conciliation Commissioner, the other could not with propriety represent debtors in Section 75 proceedings.

Q: Did it matter whether the clients were the firm's existing foreclosure clients or new debtors?

A: No. The opinion drew no distinction; the bar arose from the partnership relationship with the commissioner, not from the source of the clients.

Background and rules framework

The opinion did not cite a numbered Rule of Professional Conduct; it rested on the canon-era principle that a lawyer must not create a condition that brings reproach upon the profession or reflects on the administration of justice, applied to a law partner's relationship with a partner holding a discretionary judicial office. The opinion predates the Model Rules and made no Model Rule citation.

Citations and references

Statutes:

• Section 75 of the Bankruptcy Act (11 U.S.C.A. § 203): farm-debtor conciliation and the office of Conciliation Commissioner.

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 77: Firm name after a partner takes public office
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 73: Will drafter representing a claimant against the will

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-78/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted September 21, 1934

The Board is in receipt of the following request for an opinion:

"A and B have been associated together as partners and engaged in the general practice of law for several years last past. A has recently been appointed Conciliation Commissioner for his County under Section 75 of the Bankruptcy Act [11 U.S.C.A. § 203] and has accepted the appointment. A and B have continued the partnership and are still engaged in the practice of law together. Prior to the appointment of A as Conciliation Commissioner, the partnership of A and B represented numerous farmers defending foreclosure actions, which farmers are eligible to receive the benefits of Section 75 and undoubtedly will find it necessary to petition under same in the near future. Many of these debtors have determined that it will be necessary for them to file a petition and schedules under Section 75 and they desire to retain B as their attorney in preparing petition and schedules and appearances for them wherever necessary, either before the Court or the Conciliation Commissioner in the development of the case. Other debtors who were not represented by the partnership of A and B prior to the appointment of A as Conciliation Commissioner, who are now proposing to file debtor's petition under Section 75, have conferred with B relative to his representing them in such proceedings before the Court and Conciliation Commissioner. As I understand it the Conciliation Commissioner has little discretion except in the appointment of appraisers and everything that is done by him must be approved by the Court."

"Query:

1. Can B with propriety represent any debtor who may see fit to employ him in filing a petition and representing him under Section 75 of the Bankruptcy Act in any proceedings before either of the U. S. District Court or the Conciliation Commissioner?

2. Can B with propriety represent clients of the partnership of A and B for whom they were handling foreclosure actions prior to the appointment of A as Conciliation Commissioner, in proceedings under Section 75 of the Bankruptcy Act before both the U. S. Court and the Conciliation Commissioner?"

In response:

It is the opinion of the Board of Governors that as long as "A" and "B" continue in the general practice of law as a partnership and "A" occupies the position of Conciliation Commissioner, "B" cannot, with propriety represent debtors under Section 75 of the Bankruptcy Act.

The Conciliation Commissioner is an officer of the court upon whom devolves important functions involving, at least, discretionary powers. For "B" to represent debtors under the circumstances detailed would justly bring reproach upon both "A" and "B" and reflect upon the dignity and honor of the profession and the administration of justice.