Can the law partner of a village attorney serve on the village's zoning board of appeals, which the village attorney advises?

Plain-English summary

Opinion E-84-18 addressed Lawyer A, the village attorney whose duties included advising the village board, planning commission, standing committees, and zoning board of appeals. The question was whether A's law partner may serve on the village's zoning board of appeals.

The committee concluded that A's partner would not place himself or herself in a conflict of interest by serving on the zoning board of appeals. It recognized that a lawyer in A's position could have a conflict if the partner served on the board, but concluded that, assuming the village board (which has the power of appointment and removal) and the zoning board of appeals are apprised of the partnership relationship, it would be permissible for Lawyer A to continue as village attorney while the partner serves on the board, so long as the performance of A's duties will in no manner be improperly affected by the partner's membership. The committee cited its Formal Opinions E-80-7 and E-82-15 (representing an educational district when a firm member serves on the board of directors) and a Michigan opinion permitting a lawyer to serve simultaneously as township attorney and county board member.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1984, before Wisconsin's July 1, 2007 adoption of the revised Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys (the state's Ethics 2000 update), and it analyzes conduct under the former Code. Conflicts arising from a lawyer's and a partner's public roles are now analyzed under SCR 20:1.7 / Model Rule 1.7. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 village attorney's partner sit on the village zoning board of appeals?

A: The committee concluded yes; the partner's service does not itself create a conflict, and the village attorney may continue serving if the relationship is disclosed and the attorney's duties are unaffected.

Q: Who needs to know about the partnership?

A: The committee conditioned its conclusion on the village board (which appoints and removes board members) and the zoning board of appeals being apprised of the partnership relationship.

Q: What would make it improper?

A: The committee indicated it would be improper if the performance of the village attorney's duties were in any manner improperly affected by the partner's membership on the board.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted the former Code's conflict provisions (SCR 20.24) as applied to a village attorney whose partner sits on a board the attorney advises, conditioning the arrangement on disclosure and unimpaired duties. Such conflicts are now analyzed under SCR 20:1.7 / Model Rule 1.7.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Wis. SCR 20.24 / Model Rule 1.7 (conflicts of interest) (former Code provision)

Other opinions cited:

• Wisconsin Formal Ops. E-80-7, E-82-15
• Michigan State Bar Formal Opinion C-214

See also

• WI Ethics Op. E-89-7: Lawyer on a City Council and Representation Conflicts
• WI Ethics Op. E-87-1: City Attorney as Advocate and Advisor
• WI Ethics Op. E-86-14: City Attorney Prosecuting a City Employee

Source

• Landing page: https://www.wisbar.org/formembers/ethics/pages/formal-opinions.aspx
• Original PDF: https://www.wisbar.org/formembers/ethics/Ethics%20Opinions/E-84-18.pdf