Must a lawyer withdraw from a civil case when the lawyer's partner was briefly appointed to defend the opposing party but withdrew immediately?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer at a two-person firm was a partner with a contract public defender for the county's Juvenile Department. The lawyer was retained to pursue several assault damage claims arising from a juvenile's conduct. The partner was thereafter assigned to defend the juvenile who allegedly committed the assault, and the court permitted the partner to withdraw; the partner did not discuss the case with the juvenile other than to inform him of the conflict. The question was whether the inquiring lawyer must withdraw as attorney for the civil plaintiff because of the partner's appointment under the public-defender contract.

The committee concluded it does not believe the inquiring lawyer is required to withdraw from representation of the plaintiff in the civil action under the facts presented, assuming that no confidences or secrets within the meaning of RPC 1.6(a) were received by the lawyer's partner.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 cited rules correspond to ABA Model Rules 1.6 (confidentiality), 1.7 (conflicts of interest), 1.9 (duties to former clients), and 1.10 (imputation of conflicts).

Common questions

Q: Does a partner's brief appointment for the opposing side disqualify the whole firm?

A: The committee concluded the inquiring lawyer is not required to withdraw under the facts presented, so long as the partner received no confidences or secrets.

Q: What was the key condition for the lawyer to continue?

A: That no confidences or secrets within the meaning of RPC 1.6(a) were received by the lawyer's partner during the brief appointment.

Q: Why did the brief appointment not impute a disqualifying conflict?

A: The committee relied on the facts that the partner was permitted to withdraw and did not discuss the case with the juvenile beyond informing him of the conflict, so no protected information was received.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied RPC 1.10 (imputed disqualification), RPC 1.7 (conflicts of interest), RPC 1.9 (duties to former clients), and RPC 1.6 (confidentiality), corresponding to ABA Model Rules 1.10, 1.7, 1.9, and 1.6. The committee made the imputation question turn on whether the partner had received confidences or secrets within the meaning of RPC 1.6(a), finding none on the facts presented.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality of information); Washington RPC 1.6
• ABA Model Rule 1.7 (conflict of interest: current clients); Washington RPC 1.7
• ABA Model Rule 1.9 (duties to former clients); Washington RPC 1.9
• ABA Model Rule 1.10 (imputation of conflicts); Washington RPC 1.10

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1773: Prosecuting a Former Client
• WA Ethics Op. 1742: Opposing a Former Divorce Client
• WA Ethics Op. 1574: Prosecutor Engaged to a Police Officer

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=978

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1785
Year Issued: 1997
RPC(s): RPC 1.6; 1.7; 1.9; 1.10
Subject: Conflict of interest; imputed disqualification; lawyer's partner appointed to represent opposing party, but withdrew immediately

Facts Presented: Lawyer at two person law firm is partner with a contract public defender for the Juvenile Department of the county. Lawyer was retained to pursue several assault damage claims that arose from the conduct of a juvenile. His partner was thereafter assigned to defend the juvenile who allegedly committed the assault. Partner was permitted to withdraw by the court. The partner did not discuss the case with the juvenile other than to inform him of the conflict.

Question Presented: Is it necessary for lawyer to withdraw as attorney for the civil plaintiff because of the assignment received by his partner under the public defender contract?

Applicable Rules: RPC 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, and 1.10.

RPC Committee Opinion: The Committee does not believe the inquiring lawyer is required to withdraw from representation of the plaintiff in the civil case action under the facts as set forth in the inquiry, assuming that no confidences or secrets within the meaning of RPC 1.6(a) were received by the lawyer's partner.