Can a Special Assistant Attorney General who represents the state also represent private clients suing the same state agency?

Short answer The committee was of the opinion that RPC 1.7(a) requires the lawyer to obtain the consent of both the state and the client if the lawyer is concurrently representing the state and representing other clients against the state.
Bar
WSBA
Issued
1991

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.

Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned conflicts of interest that may arise when referring cases to Special Assistant Attorneys General who also represent clients adverse to the state agency at issue. The committee was of the opinion that RPC 1.7(a) would require the lawyer to obtain the consent of both the state and the client if the lawyer were concurrently representing the state and representing other clients against the state.

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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 Special AAG also sue the state for private clients?

A: Under this 1991 opinion, only with consent; the committee was of the opinion that RPC 1.7(a) requires the consent of both the state and the client where the lawyer concurrently represents the state and clients against the state.

Q: Whose consent is required?

A: Both the state's and the client's, under RPC 1.7(a).

Background and rules framework

At the time of this opinion, Washington's RPC 1.7(a) governed direct-adversity conflicts, the subject the Model Rules place in Rule 1.7. The committee treated concurrent representation of the state and of clients against the state as a direct-adversity conflict curable only by consent of both.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • ABA Model Rule 1.7 (conflicts of interest)
  • Washington RPC 1.7(a)

See also

Source

Original opinion text

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

The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning conflicts of interest that may arise when referring cases to Special Assistant Attorneys General who also represent clients adverse to the state agency at issue. The Committee was of the opinion that RPC 1.7(a) would require that the lawyer obtain the consent of both the state and the client if the lawyer were concurrently representing the state and representing other clients against the state.

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