Ezel / Ethics Opinions / WSBA

Can a law firm partner take a part-time leave to serve as a Special Attorney General litigating for the state?

Short answer The committee declined to give a comprehensive answer without more information and directed the inquirer to comply with RPC 1.6, 1.7, and 1.9.
Bar
WSBA
Issued
1996

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.

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 Not binding precedent.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 inquirer asked whether there are ethical restraints on partners in a law firm taking a 25% leave of absence from the partnership to act as Special Attorneys General pursuing litigation on behalf of the State of Washington. The committee decided that without more information it could not give a comprehensive answer, and could only direct the inquirer to comply with RPC 1.6, 1.7, and 1.9.

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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 1.6, 1.7, and 1.9 correspond to ABA Model Rules 1.6 (confidentiality), 1.7 (current-client conflicts), and 1.9 (duties to former clients).

Common questions

Q: Did the committee say a partner could serve part-time as a Special AG?

A: The committee did not resolve the question; it said it could not give a comprehensive answer without more information.

Q: Which rules did the committee identify?

A: The committee directed the inquirer to comply with RPC 1.6 (confidentiality), RPC 1.7 (current-client conflicts), and RPC 1.9 (former-client duties).

Background and rules framework

The opinion identified the conflict-and-confidentiality framework that governs a private lawyer who simultaneously takes on state litigation: RPC 1.6, 1.7, and 1.9 (corresponding to ABA Model Rules 1.6, 1.7, and 1.9). The committee did not apply those rules to specific facts; it flagged them as the rules with which the arrangement must comply.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • ABA Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality); Washington RPC 1.6
  • ABA Model Rule 1.7 (current-client conflicts); Washington RPC 1.7
  • ABA Model Rule 1.9 (duties to former clients); Washington RPC 1.9

See also

Source

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1676
Year Issued: 1996
RPC(s): RPC 1.6; 1.7; 1.9
Subject: Law partner acting as Special Attorney General part-time

The Committee discussed your inquiry regarding whether there are any ethical restraints to partners in a law firm taking a 25% leave of absence from the partnership to act as Special Attorneys General for the purpose of pursuing litigation on behalf of the State of Washington. The Committee decided that without more information, it cannot give a comprehensive answer, and can only direct the inquirer to comply with RPC 1.6, 1.7, 1.9.

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