TX 1960

Can a lawyer sit as a city commissioner while his law partner represents clients with matters before that same commission?

Short answer: The Committee concluded that one member of a law firm may not serve as chairman of the City Commission while his law partner accepts employment to represent clients with interests before the Commission; the arrangement is a conflict under Canon 6, and the disqualification of the commissioner-lawyer extends to his partners.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1960. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current Texas Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 1960
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned a two-lawyer firm in which both partners actively practice and share fees: one partner serves as chairman of the City Commission, while the other accepts employment to represent applicants and companies with interests before the Commission, such as franchise applicants and utilities seeking rate increases. The Committee concluded that this is not ethical or proper and would violate Canon 6 (8-0).

The Committee reasoned that a lawyer generally may not represent conflicting interests (except in some instances with the consent of all parties). The lawyer who sits on the Commission represents the city in a fiduciary, representative capacity; for him to represent an individual or company before the Commission while a member of it would violate Canon 6, comparing Opinions 1 and 82. The Committee added that when a lawyer is prohibited from handling a matter, all of his partners are likewise barred, comparing Opinions 23, 37, 82, 104, 108, 113, and 132, and noting Opinion 65 as directly in point.

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 lawyer who sits on a city commission represent private clients before that commission?

A: No. The Committee said the commissioner-lawyer represents the city in a fiduciary capacity, so representing a private party before the Commission while serving on it would violate Canon 6.

Q: Does the conflict reach the commissioner's law partner?

A: Yes. The Committee said that when a lawyer is prohibited from handling a matter, all of his partners are likewise barred, so the partner could not take the representation either (8-0).

Q: Could client consent cure the problem?

A: The Committee noted only generally that conflicting interests may be represented "in some instances with the consent of all parties," but held this arrangement improper under Canon 6 without treating consent as a cure here.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canon 6, which governed conflicting interests. The modern analogs are ABA Model Rule 1.7 (conflicts of interest, current clients) and Model Rule 1.10 (imputation of conflicts within a firm), which carries the partner-disqualification point the opinion makes.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • MR 1.7 (conflict of interest, current clients) and MR 1.10 (imputation of conflicts), as the modern analogs
  • Texas Canon 6 (former canon on conflicting interests)

Other opinions cited:

  • Texas Opinions 1 and 82: representing interests adverse to a governmental body the lawyer serves
  • Texas Opinion 65: directly in point
  • Texas Opinions 23, 37, 82, 104, 108, 113, 132: imputation of a lawyer's disqualification to partners

See also

Source

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

Where a law firm, consisting of two men and existing over a long period of time as a law partnership in which both partners are actively engaged and from all practical viewpoints divide their fees and costs as to the partnership, and engaging in a general practice of law, wherein both of the attorneys try cases together, is it ethical or proper for one of same attorneys to serve as chairman of the City Commission while the other said attorney accepts employment to represent applicants and/or other persons or companies with interests before the Commission, such as applicants for franchises or utility companies seeking raises?

18 Baylor L. Rev. 288 (1966)

CONFLICTING INTERESTS - EMPLOYMENT - LAW PARTNER OF CITY COMMISSIONER
One member of a law firm may not serve as chairman of the City Commission while his law partner accepts employment to represent clients with interests before the Commission.

Canon 6.

It is not ethical or proper, and would violate Canon 6.

A lawyer generally is not permitted to represent conflicting interests (except in some instances with the consent of all parties.) The lawyer member of the Commission is representing the city in a fiduciary, representative capacity. For him to represent an individual or company before the Commission while he is a member of the Commission would violate Canon 6. Compare prior Opinions 1 and 82.

Generally, when a lawyer is prohibited from handling a legal matter, all partners of that lawyer are likewise barred. Compare Opinions 23, 37, 82, 104, 108, 113 and 132. Opinion 65 is very much in point, and is in accord with these views. (8-0.)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 197 (1960)

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1960 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Texas Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.