Can a lawyer represent a property owner facing condemnation when the lawyer's firm also has obligations to the condemning city?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1996. Ask about yours and see what the current Washington Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A lawyer asked whether the firm could represent a potential condemnee given the firm's existing obligations to the city of Wenatchee. The committee was of the opinion that, assuming the lawyer believes the representation of the client would not be adversely affected by the firm's obligations to the city, the lawyer could represent the potential condemnee in compliance with RPC 1.7(a) and (b).
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1996, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 corresponds to ABA Model Rule 1.7 (conflict of interest: current clients).
Common questions
Q: Can a firm that serves a city represent a property owner the city may condemn?
A: The committee was of the opinion that the lawyer could represent the potential condemnee in compliance with RPC 1.7(a) and (b), assuming the lawyer believes the representation would not be adversely affected by the firm's obligations to the city.
Q: What did the committee make the answer depend on?
A: The committee conditioned its conclusion on the lawyer's belief that the representation would not be adversely affected by the firm's obligations to the city.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied RPC 1.7 (conflict of interest: current clients, corresponding to ABA Model Rule 1.7). The committee treated the lawyer's reasonable belief that the firm's obligations to the city would not adversely affect the new representation as the factor controlling whether the lawyer could take on the condemnee under RPC 1.7(a) and (b).
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- ABA Model Rule 1.7 (conflict of interest: current clients); Washington RPC 1.7(a), 1.7(b)
See also
- WA Ethics Op. 1626: Firm Member on a City Council, Firm Adverse to the City
- WA Ethics Op. 1655: A Spouse's Public Defender Conflicts Are Not Imputed
Source
- Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=731
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Advisory Opinion: 1649
Year Issued: 1996
RPC(s): RPC 1.7
Subject: Client conflict of interest.
The Committee was of the opinion that, assuming that you believe the respresentation of the client would not be adversely affected by your law firm's obligations to the city of Wenatchee, you could represent the potential condemnee in compliance with RPC 1.7 (a) and (b).
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1996. 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