Can a lawyer who serves as special counsel to a city's personnel board appear before the city council or sue the city for private clients in unrelated matters?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer serving as special counsel to the personnel board of a city in a large metropolitan area asked whether he could appear before the city council on behalf of private clients on matters unrelated to personnel problems, and whether that role would preclude him from suing the city for private clients on similarly unrelated matters. The committee had considered a comparable situation in Opinion 59-2, involving a county attorney who wished to represent property owners in condemnation and accident matters.

The committee concluded that it would not be proper for the lawyer to represent the personnel board while also appearing before the city council for private clients or suing the city, even on unrelated matters. It reasoned that the lawyer was directly employed by the city council to represent and advise the council, that disclosure of the possible conflicting interests to all parties probably would not be sufficient to justify the representation when interests conflicted, and that public misunderstanding regarding such representation could easily arise.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1960, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. It applied former Canons 6 and 29 of the Canons of Professional Ethics; conflicts of interest are now addressed by Rule 4-1.7 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Model Rule 1.7). Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current rules before relying on any specific requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer who advises a city body also take private cases against the city?

A: In this opinion, no. The committee found that special counsel to the personnel board could not appear before the city council or sue the city for private clients, even on unrelated matters.

Q: Could disclosure to all parties cure the conflict?

A: The committee thought not. It stated that disclosure of the possible conflicting interests probably was not sufficient to justify the representation, and it pointed to the risk of public misunderstanding.

Q: Did the committee rely on an earlier opinion?

A: Yes. It referred to Opinion 59-2, which had addressed a county attorney representing property owners in condemnation suits and in automobile accident cases.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied former Canons 6 and 29 of the Canons of Professional Ethics. Conflicts of interest are now addressed by Rule 4-1.7 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Model Rule 1.7). The committee's analysis turned on the lawyer's direct employment by the city council, the insufficiency of disclosure to cure the conflict, and the risk of public misunderstanding.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canon 6 [Canons of Professional Ethics; see current Rule 4-1.7]
• Canon 29 [Canons of Professional Ethics]

Other opinions cited:

• Florida Opinion 59-2: a county officer's conflicts in condemnation and accident matters.

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 59-2: A County Officer in Condemnation and Accident Cases
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 65-17: County Prosecutor in Civil Suits Against the County
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 60-12: A Partner Appearing Before a Client Public Body
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 69-21: A City Lawyer Before the Governing Board

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-59-25/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-59-25-1.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 59-25
February 15, 1960
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
It is improper for a lawyer who is special counsel for the personnel board of a city to appear before the city council or file suit against the city on behalf of private clients even in matters unrelated to personnel problems, because of inherent conflicts of interest, which cannot be effectively eliminated by disclosure, and the possibility of public misunderstanding of such arrangements.
Canons: 6, 29
Opinion: 59-2
Chairman Holcomb stated the opinion of the committee:
A request is made for an opinion by the Committee as to whether it would be ethical for a lawyer, as special counsel for the Personnel Board of a Florida city in a large metropolitan area, to appear before the City Council of that city on behalf of private clients relative to matters entirely unrelated to personnel problems, and as to whether such employment would preclude him from filing suit against the City on behalf of private clients on matters entirely unrelated to personnel problems.
This Committee had a similar matter before it and rendered its Opinion 59-2, in connection with a County Attorney representing property owners in condemnation suits and in automobile accident cases.
It is our opinion that it would not be proper to represent the Personnel Board of the City and at the same time to appear before the City Council on behalf of private clients and to file suits against the City even though unrelated to personnel problems, since the lawyer is directly employed by the City Council to represent and advise the Council, and the disclosure of possible conflicting interests to all parties probably is not sufficient to justify representation when interests conflict and public misunderstanding regarding such representation could easily arise.