Can a firm take court-appointed criminal defense cases when it also represents the county sheriff and one of its lawyers is married to a town prosecutor?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1990. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The inquiring firm wanted to accept criminal defense appointments while it also represented the county sheriff, and while one of its lawyers was married to the prosecuting attorney in one of the towns in the area. The firm proposed two safeguards: it would disclose any conflicts in open court and obtain client consent, and the court had agreed not to appoint the firm to defend any defendant arrested by the county sheriff's office.
The committee was of the opinion that this proposed arrangement would comply with RPC 1.7 and therefore was permissible.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1990, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 firm that represents the county sheriff still take court-appointed criminal defense work?
A: Under this 1990 opinion, yes, where the firm discloses conflicts in open court, obtains client consent, and the court agrees not to appoint the firm to defend anyone arrested by the sheriff's office.
Q: Does a firm lawyer being married to a prosecutor bar the appointments?
A: The committee reviewed those facts together and was of the opinion that, with the disclosures, consent, and the no-appointment arrangement for sheriff arrests, the proposal complied with RPC 1.7.
Q: What safeguards did the firm propose?
A: Disclosure of any conflicts in open court, client consent, and a court agreement not to appoint the firm to any defendant arrested by the county sheriff's office.
Background and rules framework
At the time of this opinion, Washington's RPC 1.7 governed concurrent conflicts of interest, the subject the Model Rules place in Rule 1.7. The committee treated the combination of disclosure in open court, client consent, and the court's agreement to screen out sheriff arrests as sufficient to bring the appointments within the rule.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- ABA Model Rule 1.7 (concurrent conflicts of interest)
- Washington RPC 1.7
See also
Source
- Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=420
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning criminal defense appointments to your law firm which also represents the county sheriff and one lawyer in your firm is married to the prosecuting attorney in one of the towns in your area. The Committee understood that you had agreed to accept such appointments, but that you intend to disclose any conflicts in open court and obtain client consent. The court had also agreed not to appoint any defendant arrested by the county sheriff's office to your firm. The Committee was of the opinion that this proposed arrangement would comply with RPC 1.7 and therefore was permissible.
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1990 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.