Ezel / Ethics Opinions / SBAND

How do a public interest firm and its contract lawyer identify and address shared client conflicts?

Short answer The committee said both the public interest firm and contract lawyer needed reasonable conflict-identification procedures. It treated the contractor’s associated lawyers as a firm under Rule 1.10 on the stated facts and found screening inadequate to cure their particular conflict.
Bar
SBAND
Issued
January 22, 1996
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1996. Ask about yours and see what the current North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.

How much weight this carries: Under North Dakota Rule for Lawyer Discipline 1.2(B), a lawyer who acts in good faith and in reasonable reliance on a written opinion of the association's ethics committee is not subject to sanction for the conduct the opinion addresses. Source.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

A public interest firm assigned client matters to a contract lawyer who shared office space, letterhead, and case access with three other lawyers. One associated lawyer handled collections against a person involved in a client matter assigned to the contractor.

The committee treated both the public interest firm and contract lawyer as representing the referred client, so each needed conflict checks. It said the contractor’s association counted as a firm under Rule 1.10 given its public presentation and access to information. There was no blanket ban on collection work, but conflicts required case-specific treatment; screening was not an appropriate cure in this small, shared office on these facts.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Was the shared office treated as a firm?

A: Yes. The committee said the contract lawyer and three associates constituted a firm under Rule 1.10 on the information provided.

Q: Did the opinion permit a screening wall for this conflict?

A: No. It concluded that screening was not an appropriate way to resolve the conflict in the described firm.

Background and rules framework

The opinion discusses North Dakota Rules 1.10(a), 1.7 in addressing the stated request.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • North Dakota Rule 1.10(a).
  • North Dakota Rule 1.7.

See also

Source

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 1996. 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