Can a former agency law clerk bring a class action against that agency over a legal violation discovered while employed there?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1991. Ask about yours and see what the current Washington Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The inquiry concerned proposed representation in a class action against a state agency for which the lawyer had previously been employed as a law clerk, regarding what the lawyer believed was a violation of federal law by the agency. The lawyer had discovered the violation while employed by the agency and had unsuccessfully brought the issue to the agency at that time.
The committee was of the opinion that the lawyer could not represent such a class action against the former employer, because such conduct would violate RPC 1.6, 1.9, and 1.11.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1991, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 clerk sue that agency over something learned on the job?
A: Under this 1991 opinion, no; the committee was of the opinion that representing a class action against the former employer over the discovered violation would violate RPC 1.6, 1.9, and 1.11.
Q: Did it matter that the lawyer had raised the issue with the agency while employed?
A: The committee noted those facts but still concluded the proposed representation would violate the confidentiality, former-client, and former-government-lawyer rules.
Background and rules framework
At the time of this opinion, Washington's RPC 1.6 governed confidentiality, RPC 1.9 governed duties to former clients, and RPC 1.11 governed former government lawyers, the subjects the Model Rules place in Rules 1.6, 1.9, and 1.11. The committee treated the violation the lawyer learned of while a clerk as protected information whose use in suing the agency the three rules together barred.
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)
- Washington RPC 1.6, 1.9, 1.11
See also
- WA Ethics Op. 1350: Former AAG Suing a Former Client College
- WA Ethics Op. 1349: Former Agency Lawyer Appearing Before the Agency
Source
- Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=482
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning your proposed representation in a class action against a state agency for which you were previously employed as a law clerk regarding what, in your opinion, is a violation of federal law by the agency. [The lawyer discovered the violation while employed by the agency and unsuccessfully brought the issue to the agency at that time.] The Committee was of the opinion that you could not represent such a class action against your former employer because such conduct would violate Rules 1.6, 1.9 and 1.11 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1991. 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