If my firm defends a city, can I represent clients before that city's human rights commission?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring lawyer's firm defended a city in civil rights, employment, workers' compensation, and general liability matters, some assigned by the city's insurers with the City Attorney's approval. The lawyer asked whether he could represent clients before the city's Human Rights Commission, which the City Attorney's Office prosecutes complaints before. The questions concerned imputed disqualification, whether appearing before a city commission differs from opposing the city itself, and whether the representation is improper.

The opinion applied Rule 1.10(a), which imputes one lawyer's disqualification to all lawyers in the firm, so the inquiring lawyer must treat the city as his client even without personal involvement in the city's matters. It then applied Rule 1.7. It concluded the Human Rights Commission is an agency of the city empowered to enforce the city's ordinance, so any suggestion that the city is not a party in interest is specious, and whether the client is a named party, party in interest, or real party in interest is irrelevant; the question is whether the client's interests are directly adverse. It concluded the proposed representation presents Rule 1.7(a) direct adversity, finding no meaningful distinction between the city and its commission.

Treating Opinion No. 94-21 as dispositive, the opinion concluded that, under the objective reasonable-lawyer standard, it could not say the proposed representation in an apparently unrelated matter is necessarily improper, assuming both clients consent after full disclosure, and that a government entity may give such consent. It assumed the firm's civil rights and employment work is unrelated to the Human Rights Ordinance, and stressed that the lawyer must give full and ongoing disclosure and stay alert to any overlap of issues.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995, before Illinois adopted the 2010 Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct. The ISBA Board of Governors affirmed the opinion in May 2010 as generally consistent with the 2010 Rules (referring to Rules 1.7, 1.10, 1.11, and 1.13 with Comment [9]), while noting the specific standards referenced may differ from the 2010 Rules. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Is appearing before a city's commission different from opposing the city itself?

A: The opinion concluded there is no meaningful distinction. The commission is a creature of the city, so representing a client against it is directly adverse to the city under Rule 1.7(a).

Q: Does it matter that the inquiring lawyer personally never worked on the city's cases?

A: No. The opinion concluded that under Rule 1.10(a) the firm's representation of the city is imputed to every lawyer in the firm, so the lawyer must treat the city as his own client.

Q: Can the representation still go forward?

A: The opinion concluded yes, in an unrelated matter, only if both the city and the new client consent after full and ongoing disclosure, with the lawyer vigilant for any overlap of issues.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted Rule 1.7 (concurrent conflicts, direct adversity, and consent under the objective reasonable-lawyer standard; Model Rule 1.7) and Rule 1.10(a) (imputation of conflicts to the whole firm; Model Rule 1.10). It treated Opinion No. 94-21 as dispositive and applied prior opinions on government clients.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 1.7 (conflict of interest: current clients) / Illinois Rule 1.7
• Model Rule 1.10 (imputation of conflicts) / Illinois Rule 1.10(a)

Other opinions cited:

• ISBA Opinions 86-4, 90-5, 90-17, 91-22, and 94-21

See also

• ISBA Ethics Op. 94-21: Representing a Client Adverse to a Current Municipal Client
• ISBA Ethics Op. 94-20: Suing a City That Employs a Partner as a Police Officer

Source

• Landing page: https://www.isba.org/ethics/opinions/9505