Can a part-time county juvenile court judge represent the county school board in a funding lawsuit against the county commission that funds the court and the judge's salary?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1983. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1983, before Tennessee's adoption of the 2003 Rules of Professional Conduct, which replaced the former Code of Professional Responsibility. Formal Ethics Opinion 86-F-107(a) later overruled the Board's prior line of per se governmental-conflict opinions, including this one, "to the extent inconsistent" with a case-by-case approach. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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
The Judge of a county juvenile court, who was also a practicing lawyer, asked whether he could represent the county school board in an action against the county commission over the proper funding of the school board. The juvenile court had been created by a private act of the General Assembly, and that act required the county commission to appropriate, from county general funds, both the money to operate the court and the compensation for the juvenile judge.
The opinion applied the Code of Professional Responsibility's definition of "differing interests," which includes "every interest that will adversely affect either the judgment or the loyalty of a lawyer to a client," and the reasoning of Formal Ethics Opinion 83-F-53, which had treated a comparable government-budget conflict as an actual conflict that the public interest does not allow to be waived. The opinion reasoned that the attorney's judgment and loyalty to the school board would be adversely affected, and his independent professional judgment impaired, by taking an adversary position against the same county commission that funds the operation of his court, including his salary.
The opinion concluded that the funding of the school board and the funding of the judge's salary by the county commission were related to the extent that the attorney was prohibited from bringing an action against the county commission on behalf of the school board for an increase of funds.
Common questions
Q: Can a lawyer who serves as a part-time juvenile court judge sue the body that funds his court on a client's behalf?
A: No. The opinion concluded the attorney "is prohibited from bringing an action against the County Commission on behalf of the School Board for an increase of funds," because the county commission funds both the school board and the operation of his court, including his salary.
Q: Why does the funding relationship create a conflict?
A: The opinion reasoned that the attorney's "judgment and loyalty ... to the County School Board will be adversely affected and his independent professional judgment and loyalty to the School Board impaired by the adversary position of the attorney against the County Commission which funds the operation of his court, including his salary."
Q: What standard did the Board apply?
A: The Code's definition of "differing interests," which includes "every interest that will adversely affect either the judgment or the loyalty of a lawyer to a client," together with the reasoning of Formal Ethics Opinion 83-F-53 that such public-interest conflicts cannot be waived.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied the Tennessee Code of Professional Responsibility's definition of "differing interests" and the reasoning of Formal Ethics Opinion 83-F-53, which treated a government lawyer's conflicting budget-related loyalties as an actual conflict the public interest does not allow to be waived. No Disciplinary Rule is cited by number in the opinion's own text. The modern correlate is Model Rule 1.7 (conflicts of interest: current clients), noted here as a navigational cross-reference rather than a rule the opinion itself applied. Formal Ethics Opinion 86-F-107(a) later replaced the Board's per se governmental-conflict line with a case-by-case approach.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Model Rule 1.7 (conflicts of interest: current clients), modern correlate; the opinion applied the Code of Professional Responsibility's "differing interests" definition
Other opinions cited:
- Tennessee Formal Ethics Opinion 83-F-53, county attorney's conflict counseling on the budget while representing the sheriff or deputies on their budget or salaries
See also
- Tennessee Op. 83-F-53: County Civil Counsel Also Defending Criminal Cases
- Tennessee Op. 86-F-107(a): Governmental Attorney Conflicts Decided Case-by-Case
- Tennessee Op. 86-F-107: Governmental Attorney Per Se Conflict Rules (Vacated)
- Tennessee Op. 85-F-88: Public Official Suing the State
- Tennessee Op. 86-F-105: Commissioner vs. Criminal Defense
Source
- Landing page: https://www.tbpr.org/ethic_opinions/83-f-58
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
83-F-58 - County Judge Representing county school board
BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE
FORMAL ETHICS OPINION 83-F-58
Inquiry is made concerning the propriety of the Judge of the County Juvenile Court representing the County School Board in an action against the County Commission relative to the proper funding of the County School Board.
The County Juvenile Court, in this instance, was created by a private act enacted by the General Assembly of Tennessee. The private act provides that the County Commission shall appropriate the necessary funds for the operation of the Juvenile Court and the compensation for the Juvenile Judge from the county general funds.
Tennessee Formal Ethics Opinion 83-F-53 states that it is improper for the attorney to counsel the county in preparation of the county budget and also represent the sheriff and/or deputy sheriffs to increase their budget or salaries. The opinion holds that this is an actual conflict of interest that cannot be waived due to the public interests.
"Differing interests" is defined in the Code of Professional Responsibility as including every interest that will adversely affect either the judgment or the loyalty of a lawyer to a client, whether it be a conflicting, inconsistent, diverse or other interest.
In this instance, the judgment and loyalty of the attorney to the County School Board will be adversely affected and his independent professional judgment and loyalty to the School Board impaired by the adversary position of the attorney against the County Commission which funds the operation of his court, including his salary.
The funding of the County School Board and the funding of the salary of the attorney as Juvenile Judge by the County Commission are related to the extent that the attorney is prohibited from bringing an action against the County Commission on behalf of the School Board for an increase of funds.
This 4th day of November, 1983.
ETHICS COMMITTEE:
Edwin C. Townsend
W. J. Flippin
Henry H. Hancock
APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1983 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.