Can a city attorney serve on the board of a civic organization that is suing the city, without violating the conflict rules?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry came from a lawyer who served as a city attorney and also sat on the board of a civic body that was adverse to the city in litigation. The committee treated the situation as analogous to RPC 6.3, which addresses a lawyer who serves as a director, officer, or member of a legal services organization while also representing clients whose interests may differ from those the organization serves.

The committee was of the opinion that, if the city attorney could be isolated from access to any case in which the city attorney's office was representing the city in litigation adverse to the agency on whose board the lawyer served, nothing in the Rules of Professional Conduct would prohibit the dual service. The committee also directed that a copy of Hoquiam v. PERC, 97 Wn.2d 481, be sent to the inquirer.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1986, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 city attorney sit on the board of an organization that is suing the city?

A: Under this 1986 opinion, yes, if the attorney can be isolated from access to the cases in which the city attorney's office represents the city against that organization.

Q: What rule did the committee use to analyze the board service?

A: It reasoned by analogy to RPC 6.3, which governs a lawyer who serves as a member of a legal services organization while representing clients with potentially differing interests.

Q: What did the committee make the conclusion depend on?

A: On screening. The committee found no violation only on the condition that the lawyer be isolated from access to the adverse litigation handled by the city attorney's office.

Background and rules framework

RPC 6.3, Washington's version of ABA Model Rule 6.3, addresses a lawyer who serves as a director, officer, or member of a legal services organization while also representing clients, and the conflicts that service can create. The committee applied that framework by analogy to a city attorney who sat on the board of a civic body that was adverse to the city.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 6.3 (membership in legal services organization)
• Washington RPC 6.3

Cases:

• Hoquiam v. PERC, 97 Wn.2d 481, provided by the committee to the inquirer as related authority.

See also

• NY State Bar Op. 489: Legal Aid Board Member's Conflict
• NY State Bar Op. 643: Legal Aid Conflicts Panel
• OSB Op. 2005-66: Legal Aid Board Member Conflict

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=113

Original opinion text

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

The Committee was of the opinion that the situation raised by you concerning your employment as a city attorney and your membership on the Board of a civic body adverse to the city in litigation is somewhat analogous to the situation presented in RPC 6.3 concerning a lawyer serving as a member of a legal services organization. It was the opinion of the Committee that when such situations arose, if you could be isolated from access to any case in which the city attorney's office was representing the city in litigation adverse to the agency on whose Board you served, there would be nothing in the Rules of Professional Conduct to prohibit such conduct. The Committee directed that I send to you a copy of Hoquaim v. PERC, 97 Wn.2d 481.