As this later-overturned opinion originally held, could a city prosecutor defend state-charge cases in county court?
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
The committee considered whether a city prosecutor’s appointment reached county court when city cases were transferred there under N.D. Cent. Code §40-18-15.1. A majority concluded that it did: if the prosecutor was expected to handle transferred city cases in county court, Rule 1.8(j)(1) barred defending state-charge cases there.
The committee said the city contract could exclude transferred cases from the appointment. If so, it saw no prohibition under that rule on the municipal lawyer defending state or county charges in county court. A later June 27, 1990 letter in the PDF said the committee stood by its May opinion after further research. The first page is stamped “OVERTURNED 93-07,” so this analysis is historical.
Currency note
The official 1990-04 scan is stamped “OVERTURNED 93-07.” The successor Opinion 93-07, dated June 4, 1993, says it “reverses a prior informal opinion letter issued on May 9, 1990.” Its analysis distinguishes city-ordinance prosecutions from unrelated county or state charges. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: What did the May 1990 majority say about county-court defense?
A: It barred defense there if the city prosecutor was expected to prosecute transferred city cases in the same court.
Q: Did the committee describe an exception?
A: It said excluding transferred city prosecutions from the appointment would remove that prohibition under its then-current analysis.
Q: Is the May 1990 analysis current?
A: The official scan is stamped “OVERTURNED 93-07”; its former holding should be read as historical.
Background and rules framework
The committee applied then-current North Dakota Rule 1.8(j)(1) to the jurisdiction of the prosecutorial appointment and N.D. Cent. Code §40-18-15.1 to transferred city cases. The official scan marks the opinion overturned by 93-07.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Rule 1.8(j)(1), applied to the jurisdiction of the city prosecutor’s appointment.
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/90-04.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