When a court orders a public defender to keep representing a defendant despite a possible conflict, must the lawyer continue?

Plain-English summary

A public defender had been ordered by a court to continue representing a defendant in an aggravated murder case after discovering that two police informants had previously been represented by other lawyers within the public defender agency. The lawyer believed a conflict of interest existed because the office might possess confidences or secrets of the informants that could be disclosed through cross-examination of them as witnesses.

The committee was of the opinion that RPC 1.15(c) requires the lawyer to continue representing the defendant pursuant to the judge's order. Because the matter is currently in litigation, the committee said it was unable to render an opinion regarding the conflict question presented.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1989, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. In Washington's pre-2006 numbering, RPC 1.15 was the rule on declining or terminating representation, corresponding to ABA Model Rule 1.16; subsection 1.15(c) is the provision requiring a lawyer ordered by a tribunal to continue representation to do so. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: If a judge denies a motion to withdraw, must the lawyer keep representing the client?

A: Under this 1989 opinion, yes. The committee concluded RPC 1.15(c) requires the lawyer to continue pursuant to the judge's order.

Q: Did the committee decide whether there was a disqualifying conflict?

A: No. Because the matter was in litigation, the committee said it could not render an opinion on the conflict question.

Q: What rule did the committee apply?

A: RPC 1.15(c) in Washington's pre-2006 numbering, the declining-or-terminating-representation rule corresponding to ABA Model Rule 1.16.

Background and rules framework

In Washington's pre-2006 numbering, RPC 1.15 governed declining or terminating representation, corresponding to ABA Model Rule 1.16. RPC 1.15(c) provides that when a tribunal orders a lawyer to continue representation, the lawyer shall do so notwithstanding good cause for terminating the representation. The committee applied that provision to require continued representation pursuant to the court's order and declined to opine on the conflict because the matter was in active litigation.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.16 (declining or terminating representation; continuation when ordered by a tribunal)
• Washington RPC 1.15(c) (pre-2006 declining-or-terminating-representation rule)

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1300: A Firm Merger and a Former-Client Conflict

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=381

Original opinion text

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

The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning your situation in which you have been ordered by a court to continue to represent a defendant in an aggravated murder case in which you discovered that two police informants have been previously represented by other lawyers with [your pubic defender agency]. You apparently believe that a conflict of interest exists because your office may possess confidences or secrets of the informants which might be disclosed through cross examination of them as witnesses. The Committee was of the opinion that RPC 1.15(c) requires that you continue to represent the defendant pursuant to the judge's order, but because the matter is currently in litigation the Committee is unable to render an opinion regarding the conflict question presented.