Can a family-law lawyer also serve as counsel to a volunteer guardian ad litem program without a conflict?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned practicing family law while also acting as an attorney for a volunteer guardian ad litem program. The committee predicated its opinion on the lawyer's representation that the proposed contract with the program will preclude the lawyer from accepting any matters in private practice in which the program or its guardians are involved. Given those limitations, the committee did not perceive a conflict under RPC 1.6 or 1.7 simply through entering a contract with the program.

The committee attached qualifications. The lawyer needs to reevaluate any possible conflicts posed as individual cases come in, and any former-client conflicts (stemming from clients the lawyer has represented before, or may represent in the future, involving matters handled for the program) must be evaluated in their individual circumstances under RPC 1.9. The committee limited the opinion to the RPCs and, to the extent at least one of the lawyers has an appointment as a pro tem commissioner in Family Court, encouraged contact with the Washington Court Ethics Advisory Committee about possible implications under the Code of Judicial Conduct. It said it saw no inherent violations of RPC 1.6, 1.7, or 1.9 so long as future representations exclude matters relating to the volunteer program, and expressed no opinion on the implications of the lawyers being court employees, which it said it would attempt to address later.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1999, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 of the same numbers and were restructured in the 2006 revisions, so verify the current rule text before relying on it.

Common questions

Q: Can a family-law lawyer also be counsel to a volunteer GAL program?

A: The committee perceived no conflict under RPC 1.6 or 1.7 simply from entering the contract, given the lawyer's representation that the contract bars private-practice matters involving the program or its guardians.

Q: Does the lawyer's job end once the contract is signed?

A: No. The committee said the lawyer must reevaluate possible conflicts as individual cases arise, and must assess former-client conflicts individually under RPC 1.9.

Q: What about a pro tem commissioner appointment in Family Court?

A: The committee limited its opinion to the RPCs and encouraged the lawyer to contact the Washington Court Ethics Advisory Committee about possible implications under the Code of Judicial Conduct, and expressed no opinion on the lawyers being court employees.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Washington RPC 1.6 (confidentiality), RPC 1.7 (conflict of interest: current clients), and RPC 1.9 (duties to former clients), corresponding to ABA Model Rules 1.6, 1.7, and 1.9. The committee made the absence of an inherent conflict depend on the contractual exclusion of private matters involving the program, and pushed the live conflict questions to case-by-case and former-client analysis under RPC 1.9.

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

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1842: City Counsel, Mayor as Opponent
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1140: Lawyer for a Homeowners Association
• WA Ethics Op. 1857: Conflicts From a Clerkship

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1059

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1866
Year Issued: 1999
RPC(s): RPC 1.6; 1.7; 1.9
Subject: Conflict of interest; client confidence or secret; family law lawyer representing volunteer guardians ad litem

I have been instructed by the Rules of Professional Conduct Committee to respond to your ethics inquiry #1866 concerning practicing family law and acting as an attorney for [volunteer guardians ad litem].

The Committee has reviewed your inquiry and determined the following:

The committee predicates its opinion on your letter of January 27, 1999 and your subsequent representation to a member of the committee that your proposed contract with [the volunteer guardian ad litem program] will preclude you from accepting any matters in your private practice in which [that program] or its guardians are involved. Given these limitations, we do not perceive a conflict under RPC 1.6 or 1.7 simply through your entering a contract with [the program]. But, you need to reevaluate any possible conflicts that may be posed as you receive individual cases. Further, any former client conflicts stemming from either clients you have represented before or you may represent in the future involving matters you handled for [the volunteer guardian ad litem program] must be evaluated in their individual circumstances under RPC 1.9. Finally, this opinion is limited to the RPCs, and to the extent that at least one of you has an appointment as a pro tem commissioner in Family Court, you are encouraged to contact the Washington Court Ethics Advisory Committee to discuss any possible implications under the CJCs. We do not see any inherent violations of RPC 1.6,1.7, or 1.9 so long as your proposed future representations exclude matters [relating to the volunteer program]. This opinion does not consider the implications of your being court employees, about which we express no opinion. We will attempt to address this question at a later time.