Is there a conflict when a lawyer represents a city whose part-time mayor is an opposing lawyer in the lawyer's other cases?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned a potential conflict when a lawyer represents a city whose part-time mayor is also a lawyer who represents opposing parties in the inquiring lawyer's other matters. The committee said whether a conflict of interest exists depends on the lawyer's and the firm's ability to appropriately represent both the city and the other clients, given the relationship with the mayor. If that representation is not affected by the relationship, there is no conflict under RPC 1.7(b)(1). If representation of either the municipality or the other clients would be adversely affected, there is an actual conflict, and the lawyer should recuse from one side or the other.

If the lawyer believes representation of both can continue, the committee said the lawyer must consult with both the municipality and the other clients of the lawyer and the firm where the mayor or a member of his firm is opposing counsel, and make full disclosure of the relationship and the potential problems that could arise. The committee treated the question of to whom in the city disclosure must be made as beyond the scope of the opinion, but suggested it be made to somebody in addition to, or other than, the mayor, and noted the city charter or state statute may be consulted. For clients in litigation, the lawyer should explain the potential complications, how the lawyer might handle them, and that the lawyer or firm may have to withdraw if problems develop that affect full representation. The committee concluded that if the clients then agree to the representation in writing, the lawyer may continue.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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. At the time of this opinion, the conflict standard was framed under former RPC 1.7(b); Washington's RPC 1.7 corresponds to ABA Model Rule 1.7 (conflict of interest: current clients), which was restructured in the 2006 revisions.

Common questions

Q: Does representing a city create a conflict when the part-time mayor is a lawyer who opposes me in other cases?

A: The committee said it depends on whether the relationship adversely affects the lawyer's ability to represent both the city and the other clients; absent such an effect, there is no conflict under RPC 1.7(b)(1).

Q: What did the committee say to do if the representation would be adversely affected?

A: The committee said that is an actual conflict, and the lawyer should recuse from one side or the other.

Q: Can the lawyer keep both representations?

A: Only after full disclosure of the relationship and potential problems to both the city and the affected clients, and, for those clients, written agreement to continue; the committee added the lawyer or firm may have to withdraw if problems develop.

Q: Who in the city must receive the disclosure?

A: The committee treated that as beyond the scope of the opinion but suggested disclosure be made to somebody in addition to, or other than, the mayor, and noted the city charter or state statute may be consulted.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Washington RPC 1.7(b) (conflict of interest), corresponding to ABA Model Rule 1.7. The committee made the existence of a conflict turn on whether the relationship with the mayor would adversely affect the lawyer's representation of either the city or the other clients, and made continued dual representation contingent on full disclosure and written client agreement.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.7 (conflict of interest: current clients); Washington RPC 1.7(b)(1)

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 1140: Lawyer for a Homeowners Association
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1160: Conflict Cured by Consent
• WA Ethics Op. 1840: Prosecutor Bidding on PD Work

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1035

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1842
Year Issued: 1998
RPC(s): RPC 1.7(b)
Subject: Conflict of interest; lawyer represents city whose part-time mayor is a lawyer who represents opposing parties

I have been instructed by the Rules of Professional Conduct Committee to respond to your ethics inquiry #1842 concerning a potential conflict of interest when representing [a city whose part-time mayor is also a lawyer and represents opposing parties].

The Committee has reviewed your inquiry and determined the following: the issue of whether there is a conflict of interest would depend upon your and your firm’s ability to appropriately represent both the city and your other clients, given the relationship with the mayor. If that representation is not affected by the relationship, there is no conflict under RPC 1.7(b)(1). However, if your representation of either the municipality or other clients would be adversely affected, then there is an actual conflict and you should recuse yourself from one side or the other. If you believe you can continue with the representation of both the city and the other clients, you then need to have consultations with both the municipality and the other clients of both yours and your firm where the mayor or a member of his firm is opposing counsel and make full disclosure of the relationship and the potential problems that could arise. It is beyond the scope of this opinion as to whom in the city organization disclosure needs to be made. However, it is suggested that it needs to be made to somebody in addition to, or other than, the mayor. The city charter or state statute may be consulted in this regard. With those clients that are in litigation, you should explain the potential complications that may arise, how you might handle the same and that it is possible that you or your law firm may have to withdraw if problems develop that affect full representation of either client. After that, if the clients agree to your representation in writing, you may continue with it.