Can one attorney represent both a city and a school district in the same delinquent-tax suit?

Plain-English summary

The question was whether it is unethical for an attorney to represent more than one taxing agency in a delinquent-tax suit, either where a city and a school district are joint plaintiffs, or where a school district is the plaintiff and a city is an impleaded defendant.

The Committee answered "not necessarily." Under Canon 6 it is unethical to represent conflicting interests, and an attorney represents conflicting interests when, for one client, it is his duty to contend for what his duty to another client requires him to oppose. Because the question as stated did not necessarily involve a conflict, there would be no per se violation of the canons. The Committee added that such dual representation is not always ethical, because conflicts could arise, in which event the attorney should disqualify. The vote was 8-1.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1964, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 one lawyer represent two taxing agencies in the same tax suit?

A: The Committee said it is not a per se violation of Canon 6, because the representation does not necessarily involve a conflict, but the lawyer must watch for conflicts and disqualify if one develops.

Q: When would the dual representation become improper?

A: When a conflict of interest actually arises, that is, when the lawyer's duty to one taxing agency requires him to contend for something his duty to the other requires him to oppose. At that point the Committee said he should disqualify.

Q: Does it matter whether the agencies are co-plaintiffs or on opposite sides?

A: The Committee treated both postures the same in answering the question: neither was a per se violation, and both depend on whether an actual conflict appears.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canon 6, which made it unethical to represent conflicting interests. The modern analog is ABA Model Rule 1.7 (concurrent conflicts of interest), which allows common representation absent a direct adversity or material-limitation conflict and the other rule conditions.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.7 (concurrent conflicts of interest), as the modern analog
• Texas Canon 6 (former canon)

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 296: Assistant County Attorney in Private Eminent-Domain Cases
• TX Ethics Op. 298: Insurer's Attorney Defending the Insured While Suing Him on Coverage
• TX Ethics Op. 307: District Attorney's Firm Representing the Surety in the County's Bond Suit

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-295/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_295.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

Is it unethical for an attorney to represent more than one taxing agency in a delinquent tax suit in which a city and a school district are joint plaintiffs or in a delinquent tax suit in which a school district is plaintiff and a city is an impleaded defendant?

18 Baylor L. Rev. 362 (1966)

CONFLICTING INTEREST - TWO TAXING AGENCIES
Representation in a delinquent tax case of two taxing agencies by one attorney is not a per se violation of the Canons of Ethics since there is not necessarily a conflict, but the attorney should be vigilant to detect any conflict between the interests of his two clients.

Not necessarily. Under Canon 6, it is unethical to represent conflicting interests, and an attorney represents conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is his duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires him to oppose. Since the question as stated does not necessarily involve a conflict, there would be no per se violation of the Canons. However, it cannot be said that such dual representation is always ethical, because conflicts of interest could arise, in which event the attorney should disqualify. (8- 1.)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 295 (1964)