WSBA 1995

Can a law firm represent clients adverse to a city when one of the firm's lawyers serves on the city council?

Short answer: The committee was of the opinion that because there is no attorney-client relationship with the city council, RPC 1.7(a) does not apply, but RPC 1.7(b) always applies and may require client consent after full disclosure, and whether the firm can represent the claimant under RPC 1.10 depends on the facts.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1995. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, 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 Not binding precedent.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

A firm asked about the ethical considerations when members or associates of the firm represent claimants or defendants adverse to a city, while one member of the firm is a city council member. The committee was of the opinion that because there is no attorney-client relationship with the city council, RPC 1.7(a) does not apply; however, RPC 1.7(b) will always apply. If a problem under RPC 1.7(b) exists in a specific situation, then client consent after full disclosure is necessary. The committee noted that, under case law, specific circumstances may create a non-waivable conflict, but it did not address that issue.

The committee was of the opinion that in a directly adversarial matter, the attorney can recuse himself or herself from addressing that issue on the council. Whether the firm may represent a claimant against the city under RPC 1.10 depends on the facts of the specific case and whether the firm's representation of the claimant would potentially or materially be affected. If there is a conflict under RPC 1.10, then withdrawal from representation is necessary.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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. Washington's RPC 1.7 and 1.10 correspond to ABA Model Rules 1.7 (conflict of interest: current clients) and 1.10 (imputation of conflicts).

Common questions

Q: Does the lawyer's city council seat create a conflict under RPC 1.7(a)?

A: The committee said RPC 1.7(a) does not apply because there is no attorney-client relationship with the city council, but RPC 1.7(b) always applies.

Q: When does the firm need the client's consent?

A: The committee said that if a problem under RPC 1.7(b) exists in a specific situation, client consent after full disclosure is necessary.

Q: Can the firm represent a claimant against the city?

A: The committee said that depends on the facts under RPC 1.10, including whether the firm's representation of the claimant would potentially or materially be affected; if there is a conflict under RPC 1.10, withdrawal is necessary.

Q: What did the committee say about the council member's role?

A: The committee said that in a directly adversarial matter the attorney can recuse himself or herself from addressing that issue on the council.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied RPC 1.7 (conflict of interest, corresponding to ABA Model Rule 1.7) and RPC 1.10 (imputation of conflicts, corresponding to ABA Model Rule 1.10). The committee distinguished RPC 1.7(a), which it found inapplicable absent an attorney-client relationship with the council, from RPC 1.7(b), which it said always applies, with a material limitation on the representation as the factor that would trigger the need for consent. It made the RPC 1.10 question fact-specific.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

ABA Model Rule 1.7 (conflict of interest: current clients); Washington RPC 1.7
ABA Model Rule 1.10 (imputation of conflicts of interest); Washington RPC 1.10

Source

Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=709

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1626
Year Issued: 1995
RPC(s): RPC 1.7; 1.10
Subject: Conflict of interest; lawyer on city council while firm represents clients adverse to city

The Committee discussed your inquiry regarding the ethical considerations of members or associates of a law firm representing claimants or defendants adverse to the city when a member of the firm is a city council member. As there is no attorney-client relationship with the city council, 1.7(a) does not apply; however, RPC 1.7(b) will always apply. If in a specific situation, a problem under RPC 1.7(b) exists, then client consent after full disclosure is necessary. Under case law, specific circumstances may create a non-waivable conflict, but the Committee does not address this issue.

It was the opinion of the Committee that in a directly adversarial matter, the attorney can recuse himself or herself from addressing that issue on the council.

Whether the firm may represent a claimant against the city under RPC 1.10 depends on the facts of a specific case, and whether the firm's representation of the claimant would potentially or materially be affected. If there is a conflict under RPC 1.10, then withdrawal from representation is necessary.

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1995 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.