Can a firm whose lawyer serves as the County Beer Board's attorney also represent private clients before other, unrelated county boards like the Board of Zoning Appeals?

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1981, before Tennessee's adoption of the 2003 Rules of Professional Conduct, which replaced the former Code of Professional Responsibility. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 mentioned here.

Plain-English summary

An attorney who represents a County Beer Board asked whether his firm was barred from other county representations. In this arrangement, the attorney prepared the minutes of the Board's regular monthly meetings, represented it in litigation when an applicant appealed a permit denial, and advised it on legal questions, in exchange for a monthly fee plus an hourly rate for litigation time. The firm never represented anyone in a matter involving the Beer Board or beer permits, though other firm members had represented individuals before the Board of Zoning Appeals and other county boards. The county had no regular county attorney and instead employed various private attorneys from time to time for specific matters.

The inquiry arose because of Formal Ethics Opinion 81-F-4, which addressed the conflicts facing an attorney who serves generally as a municipality's or agency's counsel while also representing private clients. The Board explained that 81-F-4 was intended to apply to private practitioners who serve as County Attorneys, a broader advisory role. Here, the Board found no conflict of interest manifested in the firm accepting employment from individuals with matters before other county boards and agencies that had no relation to the Beer Board or beer permits.

Common questions

Q: Does representing a specific county board like a Beer Board bar the firm from all other county representation?

A: No, not when the matters are unrelated. The Board found "there appears to be no conflict of interest manifested in the firm accepting employment from individuals who have matters involving other boards and agencies of the county which, in no way, relates to the Beer Board or beer permits."

Q: Why doesn't 81-F-4 apply here the way it applies to a County Attorney?

A: Because this attorney's role is limited to one specific board, not a general county-advisory role. The opinion states "the prior opinion, 81-F-4, was intended to apply to private practitioners who serve as County attorneys," a broader position than representing a single board on a defined scope of matters.

Q: Would the analysis change if the firm represented a client in a matter actually involving the Beer Board?

A: The opinion's approval is expressly limited to matters that "in no way" relate to the Beer Board or beer permits, implying a matter that did touch the Beer Board's own business would raise the conflict the opinion found absent here.

Background and rules framework

The opinion distinguished the general municipal-attorney conflict addressed in Formal Ethics Opinion 81-F-4 from the narrower role of an attorney retained for a single specific county board. The modern correlate is Model Rule 1.7 (conflicts of interest), noted here as a navigational cross-reference rather than a rule the opinion itself applied.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 1.7 (conflicts of interest), modern correlate

Other opinions cited:

• Tennessee Formal Ethics Opinion 81-F-4: adopted the "New Jersey Rule" for attorneys serving generally as County Attorney while representing private clients

See also

• Tenn. Ethics Op. 81-F-4: County Attorney and the New Jersey Rule
• Tenn. Ethics Op. 84-F-59: County & Dev Board Counsel
• Tenn. Ethics Op. 81-F-13: Representing Clients Before City Boards While Defending the City

Source

• Landing page: https://www.tbpr.org/ethic_opinions/81-f-11

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

81-F-11 - Beer Board Attorney

BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

FORMAL ETHICS OPINION 81-F-11

A request has been made for an opinion from an attorney who represents a County Beer Board.

In this particular instance, the attorney prepares the minutes of the regular monthly meetings, represents them in litigation if the applicant appeals the denial of a permit and advises them on legal questions. The attorney is compensated a designated amount each month plus an hourly fee for time spent in litigation.

The attorney is in a law firm and the firm never engages in representing anyone in a matter involving the Beer Board or beer permits. However, members of the law firm have represented other individuals before the Board of Zoning Appeals and other such county boards.

The County does not have a regular county attorney and, when necessary, employs various private attorneys from time to time in specific matters.

The inquiry is made as a consequence of Formal Ethics Opinion 81-F-4 to determine whether or not the law firm is prohibited from representing individual clients who have matters involving other boards and agencies.

The prior opinion, 81-F-4, was intended to apply to private practitioners who serve as County attorneys. In this particular instance, there appears to be no conflict of interest manifested in the firm accepting employment from individuals who have matters involving other boards and agencies of the county which, in no way, relates to the Beer Board or beer permits.

This 10th day of July, 1981.

ETHICS COMMITTEE:

Randall Burcham

W. H. Lassiter

George E. Morrow

APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD