WISBAR 1970

Can the law partners of a lawyer who is bargaining agent for a deputy sheriffs' association take criminal defense cases in that county?

Short answer: The opinion concluded they may. The committee found no inherent conflict that would absolutely foreclose the partners from criminal or juvenile defense work, but the lawyer must advise the client of the possibility of conflict, obtain consent, and withdraw if an actual conflict arises.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1970. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 1970
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.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
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

Informal Opinion 1/70 addressed whether a lawyer acting as bargaining representative for a county association of deputy sheriffs could permit his partners or associates to accept criminal and juvenile defense work in that county, given the possibility of a conflict of interest. The committee considered the inquiry alongside a companion question about partners of a lawyer-member of a municipal police and fire commission, treated in a separate opinion.

For the attorney representing the bargaining unit, the committee concluded there is no inherent conflict of interest that would absolutely foreclose his partners or associates from acting on behalf of criminal or juvenile offenders. It cautioned that where an actual conflict does arise, the lawyer would have to withdraw, so at the outset the lawyer should advise the client of that possibility and obtain consent to act in the case. The committee directed that the lawyer's conduct be guided by Canon 5 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, that a lawyer should exercise independent professional judgment on behalf of a client.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1970, before Wisconsin's July 1, 2007 adoption of the revised Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys (the state's Ethics 2000 update), and it applies Canon 5 of the former Code of Professional Responsibility. The current counterparts are SCR 20:1.7 / Model Rule 1.7 (conflicts of interest; current clients) and SCR 20:1.10 / Model Rule 1.10 (imputation of conflicts within a firm). 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 partners of a union's bargaining lawyer take criminal defense cases in the same county?

A: Under this opinion, yes. The committee found no inherent conflict that would absolutely foreclose the partners from such work.

Q: What conditions applied?

A: The lawyer should advise the client of the possibility of conflict and obtain consent at the outset, and must withdraw if an actual conflict arises.

Q: What rule guided the analysis?

A: The committee pointed to Canon 5 of the former Code, that a lawyer should exercise independent professional judgment on behalf of a client.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Canon 5 of the former Code (independent professional judgment) to a possible conflict between a lawyer's union-bargaining role and his firm's criminal defense work. The current counterparts are SCR 20:1.7 / Model Rule 1.7 (conflicts) and SCR 20:1.10 / Model Rule 1.10 (imputation).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Model Rule 1.7 / SCR 20:1.7 (conflicts of interest; current clients); former Canon 5
  • Model Rule 1.10 / SCR 20:1.10 (imputation of conflicts of interest)

See also

Source

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1970 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.

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