Can a legal aid staff attorney defend a case brought by a plaintiff who is represented by a lawyer serving on the legal aid organization's board of directors?

Plain-English summary

A member of the board of directors of the Lee County Legal Aid Society, an OEO-funded legal services corporation, asked whether a staff attorney employed by the corporation could represent a defendant in an action brought by a plaintiff who was represented by an attorney serving on the corporation's board.

The committee saw no harm in the proposed representation, provided two conditions were met: informed consent was obtained from both litigants (the committee advised that consent be obtained in writing), and the board of directors was completely removed from any connection with the attorney-client relationship between the staff attorney and the defendant. The committee added that it was preferable for the corporation's charter and bylaws to specifically enjoin the board from interfering in any manner with the attorney-client relationships formed between the staff attorney and clients, and pointed to the operational procedures described in its earlier Opinion 66-56.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1969, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. It applied former Canon 6 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, concerning adverse and conflicting interests; the conflict and informed-consent concerns are now addressed by Rule 4-1.7 (Model Rule 1.7) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. The opinion relied on Opinion 66-56, which it noted has since been withdrawn. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 legal aid staff lawyer be adverse to a lawyer who sits on the legal aid board?

A: On the facts of this opinion, yes, but only with informed consent from both litigants and with the board of directors completely removed from the attorney-client relationship between the staff attorney and the defendant.

Q: What structural safeguard did the committee recommend?

A: The committee said it was preferable for the corporation's charter and bylaws to specifically enjoin the board from interfering in any manner with the attorney-client relationships between the staff attorney and clients, consistent with the procedures in its earlier Opinion 66-56.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied former Canon 6 of the Canons of Professional Ethics, which addressed representing adverse and conflicting interests. The conflict and consent questions it raised are now governed by Rule 4-1.7 (Model Rule 1.7) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. The committee's analysis turned on isolating the board, including a board-member adversary, from the staff attorney's relationship with the client.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

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

Other opinions cited:

• Florida Opinion 66-56 [since withdrawn]: operational procedures for a legal services corporation

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 62-63: Representing an Employer and a Comp Claimant

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-69-24/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-69-24-1.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 69-24
July 23, 1969
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
Provided an informed consent to such representation is procured from both litigants, and provided the board of directors is completely removed from the relationship between a staff attorney and the defendant, a staff attorney of a legal services corporation may defend an action brought by a plaintiff represented by an attorney who is a member of the board of directors.
Canon: 6
Opinion: 66-56
Chairman MacDonald stated the opinion of the committee:
We are asked by a member of the Board of Directors of the Lee County Legal Aid Society, Inc., an OEO-funded legal services corporation, analogous to the one considered in our 66-56 [since withdrawn], whether the staff attorney employed by the corporation may properly represent a defendant in an action brought by a plaintiff represented by an attorney who is a member of the Board of Directors.
Providing an informed consent to such representation is procured from both litigants (and it is highly advisable that such consent should be procured in written form) and provided that the Board of Directors is completely removed from any connection with the attorney-client relationship between the staff attorney and the defendant, we see no harm in the proposed representation.
In our judgment, it is preferable for the charter and appropriate bylaws of the corporation to provide that the Board of Directors is specifically enjoined from interfering in any manner with the attorney-client relationships formed between the staff attorney and his client. Compare the operational procedures outlined in 66-56.