Can a lawyer who once represented a public agency later appear before that agency for a private client in a related matter?
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 lawyer had formerly been attorney for a health district and a planning commission. The lawyer now represented the owner of a solid waste landfill and might be required to appear before the health district and planning commission, having previously represented the commission in public hearings about a county request concerning the same landfill. The lawyer stated that he held no confidential information regarding the former clients, and that his knowledge came entirely from information obtained in public hearings.
The committee was of the opinion that, based on the facts presented, under RPC 1.9 and 1.11 there was no conflict in the representation of the landfill owner. The committee also expressed concern about the lawyer's letterhead stating "formerly with [name of law firm]" and called attention to the requirements of RPC 7.5(d).
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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 former agency lawyer appear before that same agency for a private client?
A: Under this 1990 opinion, yes on the facts presented, where the lawyer held no confidential information beyond what was disclosed in public hearings; the committee found no conflict under RPC 1.9 and 1.11.
Q: What made the absence of confidences decisive?
A: The committee relied on the lawyer's statement that all of his knowledge of the former clients came from public hearings, so there were no protected confidences to misuse.
Q: What was the issue with the letterhead?
A: The committee expressed concern about the "formerly with [firm]" letterhead and directed the lawyer's attention to the requirements of RPC 7.5(d).
Background and rules framework
At the time of this opinion, Washington's RPC 1.9 governed duties to former clients, RPC 1.11 addressed successive government and private employment, RPC 1.6 protected client confidences, and RPC 7.5(d) governed firm-name and letterhead representations, the subjects the Model Rules place in Rules 1.9, 1.11, 1.6, and 7.5. The committee tied the no-conflict conclusion to the lack of any confidential information and treated the letterhead as a separate compliance point.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- ABA Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality)
- ABA Model Rule 1.9 (duties to former clients)
- ABA Model Rule 1.11 (former government lawyers)
- ABA Model Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterhead)
- Washington RPC 1.6, 1.9, 1.11, 7.5(d)
See also
- WA Ethics Op. 1351: Representing an Agency While Adverse to It
- WA Ethics Op. 1350: Former AAG Suing a Former Client College
Source
- Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=429
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning a possible conflict of interest. The Committee understood the facts to be that you had formerly been the attorney for a health district and planning commission. You now represent the owner of a solid waste landfill and in connection with that representation, may be required to appear before the health district and the planning commission. The Committee further understood that you have previously represented the commission in public hearings regarding a request by the county concerning this same landfill. You also state that you have no confidential information regarding your former clients and your knowledge is all based upon information obtained in public hearings. The Committee was of the opinion, based upon the facts presented, that under RPC 1.9 and 1.11, there is no conflict in your representation of the solid waste landfill owner. The Committee also expressed a concern regarding your letterhead which states "formerly with [name of law firm]" and directed me to call your attention to the requirements of RPC 7.5(d).
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.