When could a child support enforcement investigator who was also a private lawyer represent parents in support matters?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1994. 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 employed as an investigator for a regional child support enforcement unit also practiced privately. She asked about representing custodial and noncustodial parents in several support matters, and about another lawyer sharing her office representing a parent.
The committee said it lacked the facts needed to decide the particular representations. It identified Rule 1.11(a)'s restriction on private representation in a matter in which the lawyer personally and substantially participated as a public employee, and Rule 1.11(b)'s restriction involving actual knowledge of confidential government information that could materially disadvantage a person. Mere access to agency records was distinguished from actual knowledge.
The committee also applied Rule 1.7 to whether duties to the unit would impair the private representation. For the office-sharing lawyer, it could not decide whether the two lawyers constituted one firm under Rule 1.10; that depended on how they presented and conducted their practices and on access to client information.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1994, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 approve every proposed private representation?
A: No. It said it could not decide them on the supplied facts and set out the Rule 1.7 and 1.11 questions to apply.
Q: Was access to agency records enough for the Rule 1.11(b) restriction?
A: The committee distinguished access from actual knowledge of confidential government information, the condition it described for that rule.
Q: Did sharing an office automatically make the other lawyer part of the same firm?
A: No. The committee said it lacked enough facts to decide the firm-status question under Rule 1.10.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies North Dakota Rules 1.7, 1.11, and 1.10 to concurrent agency employment and private legal practice.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- North Dakota Rules 1.7(b), 1.7(c), 1.11(a), 1.11(b), and 1.10(a).
Other opinions cited:
- SBAND Opinion 93-08, discussing title-company agent conflicts.
See also
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/94-01.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 1994. 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