Does serving as a state-paid guardian ad litem in paternity cases conflict with privately representing parents in other, unrelated paternity cases?

Short answer No. The committee concluded that being appointed and paid by the state as a guardian ad litem in paternity cases does not present a conflict of interest with privately representing a mother or father in unrelated paternity cases.

Bar

WSBA

Issued

1986

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1986. Ask about yours and see what the current Washington Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.

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 Not binding precedent.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) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

The inquiry came from a lawyer who was appointed to serve as a guardian ad litem in paternity cases, paid by the state, and who also took private work representing a mother or father in other paternity cases. The question was whether holding the state-paid guardian ad litem role created a conflict of interest with the private representations.

The committee was of the opinion that the appointment as a state-paid guardian ad litem in paternity cases does not present a conflict of interest when the lawyer is privately employed to represent a mother or father in unrelated paternity cases. The committee tied its conclusion to the cases being unrelated.

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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 lawyer take state-paid guardian ad litem appointments and still handle private paternity cases?

A: Under this 1986 opinion, yes. The committee concluded the state-paid guardian ad litem role was not a conflict with privately representing a parent in unrelated paternity cases.

Q: What made the difference for the committee?

A: That the private cases were unrelated to the cases in which the lawyer served as guardian ad litem.

Q: Did being paid by the state create the conflict?

A: No. The committee found no conflict of interest arising from the state-paid appointment itself in this situation.

Background and rules framework

RPC 1.7 (Washington's version of ABA Model Rule 1.7) governs concurrent conflicts of interest, including representations that are directly adverse to another client or materially limited by the lawyer's other responsibilities. The committee applied RPC 1.7 to a lawyer holding both a state-paid guardian ad litem role and private paternity representations, and found no conflict where the matters were unrelated.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

ABA Model Rule 1.7 (conflict of interest: current clients)
Washington RPC 1.7

Source

Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=127

Original opinion text

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

The Committee was of the opinion that the fact that you were appointed to serve as a guardian ad litem in paternity cases in which you are paid by the state does not present a conflict of interest when you are privately employed to represent a mother or father in unrelated paternity cases.

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1986. Ezel checks the current Washington Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
Chat, drafting and research in one workspace