If volunteer lawyers from different firms take pro bono cases through a legal services office, can they be on opposite sides of cases?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned conflicts of interest between lawyers who volunteer to participate in pro bono representation through a legal services office.

The committee was of the opinion that lawyers in private practice who volunteer to donate pro bono services through the organization are not practicing "in association" with each other. Therefore, the fact that volunteer lawyers may represent adverse parties does not violate the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1988, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. The rules then numbered RPC 1.7 (conflicts), RPC 1.9 (former clients), and RPC 1.10 (imputed disqualification) correspond to Model Rules 1.7, 1.9, and 1.10 and have since been amended. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can pro bono volunteers from different firms be on opposite sides of cases?

A: Per the opinion, yes. The committee was of the opinion that volunteer lawyers donating pro bono services through the organization are not "in association," so their representing adverse parties does not violate the rules.

Q: Why doesn't imputed disqualification apply across the volunteers?

A: The committee reasoned that the private-practice lawyers who volunteer through the organization are not practicing "in association" with each other, which is the predicate for imputed disqualification under RPC 1.10.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies the rules then numbered Washington RPC 1.7 (conflicts), RPC 1.9 (former clients), and RPC 1.10 (imputed disqualification), corresponding to Model Rules 1.7, 1.9, and 1.10. The committee made the result turn on the "in association" predicate for imputation: because volunteers from different private firms donating services through a legal services office are not in association with one another, one volunteer's representation is not imputed to another, and they may represent adverse parties.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Washington RPC 1.7 (conflict of interest; general rule), corresponding to Model Rule 1.7.
• Washington RPC 1.9 (duties to former clients), corresponding to Model Rule 1.9.
• Washington RPC 1.10 (imputed disqualification), corresponding to Model Rule 1.10.

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 990: imputed disqualification when a firm hires a former public defender
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1194: a lawyer on a public defender organization's board taking conflict cases
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1078: suing a defendant a partner once represented in an unrelated matter

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=297

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1217
Year Issued: 1988
RPC(s): RPC 1.7; 1.9; 1.10
Subject: Conflict of interest; imputed disqualification; lawyers from different firms providing pro bono representation through a legal services organization

The Committee considered your inquiry concerning the question of conflicts of interest between lawyers who volunteer to participate in pro bono representation through a legal services office. The Committee was of the opinion that lawyers in private practice who volunteer to donate pro bono services through your organization are not practicing "in association" with each other and therefore, the fact that volunteer lawyers may represent adverse parties does not violate the Rules of Professional Conduct.