Could a lawyer run for the legislature while the lawyer’s firm lobbied that body for clients?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1990. Ask about yours and see what the current North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A lawyer asked whether running for the North Dakota Legislature affected the firm’s ability to lobby it. The committee found no professional-conduct bar to candidacy itself. If the lawyer joined the Legislature, it said the firm would generally be disqualified from lobbying unless a constitutional or statutory provision or formally adopted legislative rule recognized the arrangement and allowed disqualification from the affected matter.
The committee said a lawyer-legislator facing a conflict could not join discussion or voting on that matter, even if the body voted to permit participation. It cited Rule 3.9 for work before nonadjudicative bodies, Rules 1.7 through 1.10 for conflicts and income from lobbying, and Rule 8.4(c) for implying improper government influence. It could not identify a then-current North Dakota statutory conflict provision and left verification of legislative rules to the requester.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1990, before North Dakota's 2006 revisions to its Rules of Professional Conduct. The later North Dakota Opinion 06-05 states: “On August 1, 2006, material changes to N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.10(a) will take effect.” 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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.
Common questions
Q: Did the committee prohibit running for the Legislature?
A: No. It said the rules did not bar the lawyer as an individual from running.
Q: Could the firm lobby after the lawyer joined the Legislature?
A: The committee said the firm would be disqualified absent a qualifying constitutional, statutory, or formally adopted legislative rule permitting the arrangement.
Q: Could the lawyer-legislator vote after disclosing a conflict?
A: No. The committee said the lawyer-legislator could not participate in discussion or voting on the conflicted matter even if the Legislature voted to allow it.
Background and rules framework
The letter cites Rule 3.9 for nonadjudicative proceedings; Rules 1.7–1.10 for conflicts affecting the firm and income; and Rule 8.4(c) for statements or implications of improper influence. It relies on ABA Ethics Opinions 296, 306, and 1087 for the conditional lobbying analysis.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Rule 3.9, addressing advocacy before nonadjudicative bodies.
- Rules 1.7–1.10, cited for conflicts and firm income from lobbying.
- Rule 8.4(c), cited for implying an ability to influence a government official improperly.
Other opinions cited:
- ABA Ethics Opinions 296, 306, and 1087, cited for the committee’s conditional lobbying analysis.
Source
- Landing page: https://www.sband.org/page/ethics_opinions
- Original PDF: https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000id_/https://www.sband.org/resource/resmgr/docs/for_lawyers/90-02.pdf
Original opinion text
Full opinion text unavailable from the official source; see the linked source above for the complete text.
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1990. Ezel checks the current North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace