May a city attorney and municipal judge also serve as a county commissioner when the firm represents cities in that county?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1998. Ask about yours and see what the current North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The lawyer served as a municipal judge and city attorney, and the lawyer’s firm represented other cities. The lawyer asked whether election to the county commission would create conflicts.
The committee said the lawyer and firm could not represent cities or other clients on matters affecting the county, including a city’s negotiation with the county for judicial services. They could generally continue city work that did not affect the county, subject to confidentiality and use-of-information rules. It found no professional-conduct rule that generally barred simultaneous county commission and municipal judge service, but did not decide the North Dakota Code of Judicial Conduct question.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1998, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Could the firm represent a city in negotiations with the county?
A: No. The committee used negotiation of judicial services with the county as an example of a prohibited representation.
Q: Could the firm continue unrelated city work?
A: Generally yes, if the work did not directly or indirectly affect the county and the other cited duties were met.
Q: Did the committee approve the municipal judge role under judicial-conduct rules?
A: No. It expressly left the North Dakota Code of Judicial Conduct outside its opinion.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied North Dakota Rules 1.7(a) and 1.10(a) to the lawyer and firm, and cited Rules 1.6 and 1.8 on confidential information and client disadvantage. It also quoted the state conflict-of-interest statute for local officials.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- North Dakota Rule 1.7(a).
- North Dakota Rule 1.10(a).
- North Dakota Rule 1.6.
- North Dakota Rule 1.8.
Statutes:
- N.D.C.C. § 44-04-22, disclosure and participation by a local official with a direct substantial interest.
- N.D.C.C. §§ 11-09-47, 12.1-13-03, and 48-02-12, cited as related provisions.
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/98-03.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 1998. 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