Can a city attorney privately represent an investor in an unrelated matter when that investor is also negotiating a development with the city?

Plain-English summary

A city attorney asked about a possible conflict of interest between the duties of that office and the lawyer's possible representation, in an unrelated matter, of an investor in a development being negotiated with the city. The committee reviewed the inquiry under the conflict rules.

The committee was of the opinion that, as the inquiry was presented, there did not appear to be a clear violation of the conflict of interest rules, as long as there was full disclosure to all parties as required by RPC 1.7(b). The committee specifically rendered no opinion on whether such representation could counter all accusations of conflict of interest, nor on the prudence or reasonableness of the representation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1991, before 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Does a city attorney's private representation of an investor negotiating with the city violate the conflict rules?

A: The committee was of the opinion that, as presented, there did not appear to be a clear violation, provided there was full disclosure to all parties as required by RPC 1.7(b).

Q: Did the committee approve the representation outright?

A: No. The committee specifically rendered no opinion on whether the representation could counter all accusations of conflict, nor on its prudence or reasonableness.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied RPC 1.7(b), Washington's concurrent-conflict rule requiring client consent after disclosure, which corresponds to ABA Model Rule 1.7. The committee tied its qualified, no-clear-violation conclusion to full disclosure to all parties and limited its analysis to the facts as presented.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.7 (concurrent conflicts of interest; consent after disclosure)
• Washington RPC 1.7(b)

See also

• AL Ethics Op. 1992-22: Councilman's Firm as City Prosecutor
• AL Ethics Op. 1993-09: Part-Time ADA and Victim's Estate

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=520

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1440
Year Issued: 1991
RPC(s): RPC 1.7(b)
Subject: Conflict of interest; city attorney representing party to negotiations with city in unrelated matter

The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning possible conflict of interest between your duties as City Attorney and your possible representation in an unrelated matter of an investor in a development being negotiated with the City. The Committee is of the opinion that as your inquiry is presented, there does not appear to be a clear violation of the conflict of interest rules as long as there is full disclosure to all parties as required by RPC 1.7(b). The Committee specifically rendered no opinion on whether such representation could counter all accusations of conflict of interest, nor on the prudence or reasonableness of the representation.