Is a public defender office treated as a law firm for conflicts, so that one lawyer's former-client conflict disqualifies the whole office, and does it change when the lawyer leaves?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer in a public defender firm previously represented Client X (now a state witness) and Client Y (now a separately represented codefendant). The lawyer is appointed to represent Client Z, whose case is adverse to both former clients. The opinion answers three questions: whether the lawyer may represent Client Z (see discussion); whether, if the lawyer cannot, another lawyer in the firm may (no); and whether the answer differs if the lawyer has left the firm (yes).

On the former-client question, the opinion applies Oregon RPC 1.9 and explains that "substantially related" matters fall into two categories: a matter-specific conflict, where the new representation requires attacking the lawyer's own prior work in the same transaction or dispute, and an information-specific conflict, where there is a substantial risk that confidential information from the prior representation would materially advance the new client's position. The opinion concludes there is no matter-specific conflict here because Client Z's matter is not the same as the former matters, and any probation revocation of Client Y would flow from Client Y's own conduct, not from the lawyer's defense of Client Z. Whether an information-specific conflict exists depends on whether the lawyer holds confidential information that could materially advance Client Z's position, such as by discrediting Client X or shifting culpability to Client Y. The mere fact of past representation now adverse is not, by itself, a disqualifying conflict, and any conflict may be waived by informed consent confirmed in writing.

On imputation, the opinion applies Oregon RPC 1.10(a) and Oregon RPC 1.0(d), which defines "firm" to include a public defender organization. If the lawyer is disqualified, the conflict is imputed to the whole office and cannot be cured by assigning Client Z's matter to another lawyer, and Oregon RPC 1.10(c) screening of newly hired lawyers does not allow screening this lawyer's conflicts. Finally, under Oregon RPC 1.10(b), if the lawyer has left the firm, the remaining lawyers may oppose the former client in a same or substantially related matter only if no remaining lawyer has protected information material to the matter; where the former clients' files are in storage and safeguards keep them unavailable to the firm's lawyers during Client Z's matter, no conflict exists.

In practice

This opinion was revised in 2026 and interprets the current Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct. The opinion holds that a public defender office is treated like any law firm for conflicts: under Oregon RPC 1.0(d) it is a firm, so one lawyer's former-client conflict is imputed office-wide under Oregon RPC 1.10(a), and neither reassignment nor screening of that lawyer cures it. Per the opinion, whether a conflict exists at all turns on Oregon RPC 1.9's matter-specific and information-specific tests; representing a client adverse to a former client is not automatically barred. The opinion holds that after the conflicted lawyer departs, Oregon RPC 1.10(b) permits the remaining lawyers to proceed if they lack material protected information and the former client's files are walled off.

Common questions

Q: Is a public defender office a "law firm" for conflict-of-interest purposes?

A: Yes. The opinion concludes Oregon RPC 1.0(d) defines "firm" to include a public defender organization, so conflicts are analyzed as they would be in a private firm.

Q: Does representing a client adverse to a former client automatically disqualify the lawyer?

A: No. The opinion concludes a former-client conflict exists only if the new matter is matter-specific or information-specific related to the prior one under Oregon RPC 1.9; the mere fact of past representation now adverse is not enough.

Q: If one public defender is disqualified, can another lawyer in the office take the case?

A: No. The opinion concludes the conflict is imputed to the whole office under Oregon RPC 1.10(a), and the conflicted lawyer cannot be screened to avoid that imputation.

Q: What changes if the conflicted lawyer leaves the office?

A: The opinion concludes that under Oregon RPC 1.10(b) the remaining lawyers may oppose the former client if none has protected information material to the matter and the former client's files are made unavailable to them.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Oregon RPC 1.9 (duties to former clients), Oregon RPC 1.10(a), (b), and (c) (imputation of conflicts and screening), and Oregon RPC 1.0(d) (definition of "firm," including public defender organizations), corresponding to Model Rules 1.9, 1.10, and 1.0. It distinguishes matter-specific and information-specific former-client conflicts drawn from Oregon case law.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Oregon RPC 1.9 / Model Rule 1.9 (duties to former clients)
• Oregon RPC 1.10(a), (b), (c) / Model Rule 1.10 (imputation of conflicts; screening)
• Oregon RPC 1.0(d) / Model Rule 1.0 (definition of "firm," including public defender organizations)

Cases:

• In re Brandsness, 299 Or 420, 702 P2d 1098 (1985), matter-specific former-client conflicts
• In re Howser, 329 Or 404, 987 P2d 496 (1999)

Other opinions cited:

• OSB Formal Ethics Op. No. 2005-11 (matter-specific conflicts); OSB Formal Ethics Op. No. 2005-17 (information-specific conflicts); OSB Formal Ethics Op. No. 2005-128 (rev 2026) (firm adverse to a departed lawyer's former client)

See also

• OSB Ethics Op. 2005-160: Former Appellate Public Defender Conflicts
• OSB Ethics Op. 2005-128: Former Firm Adverse to a Departed Lawyer's Client
• OSB Ethics Op. 2005-155: Multiple Of-Counsel Relationships and Imputed Conflicts

Source

• Landing page: https://www.osbar.org/ethics/toc.html
• Original PDF: https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-174.pdf