Can a city attorney use a city-hall office to see private clients and take referrals from city employees?

Plain-English summary

Attorney X served as city attorney for a suburban community, and the city council provided him an office in city hall that he used one afternoon a week, with a door sign listing his office hours there. City employees and others in the area came to that office on Wednesdays for legal advice, wills, deeds, divorces, and other services, many referred by city employees, and Attorney X told callers he could be found in their vicinity on Wednesday afternoons. The inquiry asked whether he violated the Canons by maintaining this branch office and accepting employment from people referred by city employees and officials. The Committee concluded he did not, on the facts stated (6-2).

The Committee's view was that, strictly within the facts stated, Attorney X is not in violation of the Canons provided his public office, with its official duties, is fully and efficiently handled and is not used to advance his private practice, citing Opinion 48 and ABA Opinion 192.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1958, under the former Texas Canons of Ethics, which the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct replaced effective January 1, 1990. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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.

Common questions

Q: Can a city attorney see private clients in a city-hall office?

A: On the facts stated, the Committee concluded he may, provided his public office and official duties are fully and efficiently handled and the office is not used to advance his private practice (6-2).

Q: Does taking referrals from city employees change the result?

A: The Committee found no violation on the stated facts, conditioning its answer on the official office not being used to advance the private practice and the official duties being fully performed.

Q: How firm is this conclusion?

A: The Committee limited it "strictly within the facts stated" and split 6-2; it relied on Opinion 48 and ABA Opinion 192.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canon 6 (conflicting interests), as applied to a part-time city attorney conducting private practice from a city-provided office. The modern analogs are ABA Model Rule 1.7 (conflict of interest, current clients) and Model Rule 1.11 (government officers and employees).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.7 (conflict of interest, current clients) and MR 1.11 (government officers and employees), as the modern analogs
• Texas Canon 6 (former canon on conflicting interests)

Other opinions cited:

• Texas Opinion 48
• ABA Opinion 192

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 183: Prosecutors and County Judges in Private Practice
• TX Ethics Op. 217: County Attorney's Private Practice Conflict
• TX Ethics Op. 197: A City Commissioner's Law Partner

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-184/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_184.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

Attorney X is City Attorney for [ ], Texas, a suburban community in a large metropolitan area. The City Council of [ ] has provided Attorney X with an office in the city hall, which is put into use by Attorney X one afternoon each week. On the door of his office in the city hall Attorney X has had the following sign painted: "Attorney X, Office Hours in this Office 1 P.M. to 5 P.M. on Wednesdays." City employees and other persons in the area around the [ ] city hall come to the office of Attorney X in the city hall on Wednesdays seeking legal advice, wills, deeds, divorces and other legal services. Many clients are referred to Attorney X by the city employees and Attorney X advises persons by telephone when called that he can be found in their vicinity on Wednesday afternoons.

Is Attorney X in violation of the Canons of Ethics in maintaining a branch office and accepting employment by persons who are referred to him by the City employees and the other city officials?

18 Baylor L. Rev. 280 (1966)

CONFLICTS OF INTERESTS - EMPLOYMENT - CITY ATTORNEY IN PRIVATE PRACTICE
A city attorney may occupy an office provided by the city in the city hall one afternoon each week and provide legal services at that time to city employees and usher clients referred to him by city employees, provided his public office is not used to advance his private practice and his official duties are fully and efficiently performed.

Canon 6.

It is the opinion of the committee that, strictly within the facts stated, Attorney X is not in violation of the Canons of Ethics provided his public office with its official duties is fully and efficiently handled and is not used to advance his private practice. ( See Opinion 48 and ABA Opinion 192.) (6- 2.)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 184 (1958)