Can two lawyers stay law partners when one of them is the County Judge and the other is the County Attorney of the same county?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry asked whether two lawyers may continue as partners when one is the County Judge and the other the County Attorney of the same county, on the understanding that neither partner would take a case that is or might be litigated in their county court and that the emoluments of office would not be partnership income. The Committee concluded that the proposed partnership should be held to violate Texas Canon 30 (7-0).

The Committee reasoned that the limitations on such a partnership make it practically impossible. No criminal matters could be accepted (citing Opinion 23), and no matter could be accepted as to which either partner is disqualified (citing Opinion 173); trial work would be limited to district and appellate courts and cases in other counties. The last sentence of the first paragraph of Canon 30 provides that "If a member of the firm becomes a judge, his name shall not be continued in the firm name." Although Opinion 173 seemed to admit tacitly that a County Judge may have a law partner if the judge's name is not in the firm name, the Committee observed that a judge permitted to practice privately is in a position of great delicacy and must be scrupulously careful to avoid using, or appearing to use, his judicial position to further his professional success.

Because the judge's name could not appear in the firm name, because a partnership of this nature could scarcely exist as a practical matter without a firm name that included the judge's name, and because a judge must refrain from the appearance of evil as well as evil, the Committee concluded the partnership should be held to violate Canon 30.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1960, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 County Judge and County Attorney of the same county practice law together as partners?

A: The Committee concluded that it is generally improper; it held the proposed partnership should be treated as a violation of Canon 30 (7-0).

Q: Why did the partnership fail under Canon 30?

A: Canon 30 provided that a firm member who becomes a judge may not keep his name in the firm name, and the Committee found a partnership of this kind could scarcely exist as a practical matter without a firm name including the judge's name.

Q: What types of work would such a partnership have been limited to?

A: The Committee said no criminal matters could be accepted (Opinion 23), no matter in which either partner was disqualified could be accepted (Opinion 173), and trial work would be confined to district and appellate courts and cases in other counties.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canon 30, which governed firm names and provided that a member who becomes a judge may not keep his name in the firm name. The modern analog for the firm-name dimension is ABA Model Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads). The opinion also reflects the conflict and appearance-of-impropriety concerns that arise when a judge engages in private practice.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 7.5 (firm names and letterheads), as the modern analog for the firm-name point
• Texas Canon 30 (former canon on firm names)

Other opinions cited:

• Texas Opinion 23: criminal matters
• Texas Opinion 173: a County Judge may have a law partner if the judge's name is not in the firm name; disqualified matters

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 220: County Judge in Private Practice
• TX Ethics Op. 259: Office-Sharing Lawyers and Joint Letterhead
• TX Ethics Op. 243: Former Prosecutor's Partner Disqualified

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-195/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_195.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

May attorneys who are partners continue as such if one is the County Judge and the other is the County Attorney at the same time of the same county; provided, of course, the Canons of Ethics, such as the canon against discussing a case with a judge in the absence of the opposing counsel, are observed?

The understanding that constitutes the basis for the law partnership is that neither partner will take a case which is or might be the subject of litigation in the County Court of their residence and the emoluments of office do not constitute a part of the partnership income.

18 Baylor L. Rev. 286 (1966)

PARTNERSHIPS - COUNTY ATTORNEY AND COUNTY JUDGE OF SAME COUNTY AS PARTNERS IN FIRM
It is generally improper for two attorneys to continue as partners when at the same time one is the County Attorney and the other the County Judge of the same county.

Canon 30.

The limitations upon such a partnership make it practically impossible for it to exist.

As one member of the committee expresses it: "It is my opinion that it would be unethical for them to practice in partnership on anything unless they exclude everything which might be forbidden to either of them. On the other hand, if each of them will do nothing which it would not be improper for either him or the other to do, they can practice as partners, if they can avoid violation of the inhibition against the judge's name appearing in the name of the firm. That might be difficult to do but I am not prepared to say it would be impossible."

As to trial work, the partnership is obviously limited to cases in district and appellate courts and cases in other counties. Of course, no criminal matters could be accepted; see Opinion 23. No matter could be accepted as to which either partner is disqualified; see Opinion 173.

The last sentence of the first paragraph of Canon 30 says that "If a member of the firm becomes a judge, his name shall not be continued in the firm name." Also, if there is enough probability of such an arrangement impairing the confidence of the community in the administration of justice, it should probably be labeled as unethical. Although Opinion 173 seems to admit tacitly that a County Judge may have a law partner, provided his name is not in the firm name, a judge who is permitted to do private practice is in a position of great delicacy and must be scrupulously careful to avoid conduct in his practice whereby he utilizes or seems to utilize his judicial position to further his professional success.

Since it is unethical for the judge's name to appear in a firm name, and since as a practical matter a partnership of this nature could scarcely exist without a firm name which included the judge's name, and since there is a need for a judge to refrain from the appearance of evil as well as from evil, our conclusion is that the proposed partnership should be held to violate Texas Canon 30. (7-0.)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 195 (1960)