In Kentucky, if a lawyer sits on a zoning board or planning commission, may the lawyer's partners or associates represent clients before that board?

Plain-English summary

The Committee was asked whether the partners or associates of a lawyer who sits on a zoning board or planning commission may represent clients before that board if the member-lawyer disqualifies himself from any participation in the matter. The answer was no.

The opinion first stated that the lawyer member of the board may not represent clients before the board under Rule 1.7(b). It then concluded that maintaining public confidence in the profession requires that the member-lawyer's partners and associates also be disqualified from representing clients before the board or commission, citing Rule 1.10 by comparison. The Committee added that KRS 100.171 and 100.220 were not controlling, because the question was one of professional ethics.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1991 (revised June 1991) and predates the Kentucky Supreme Court's substantial 2009 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct (SCR 3.130), which substantially amended Rules 1.7, 1.10, and 1.11. The Kentucky Bar Association notes lawyers should consult the current version before relying on this opinion. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could a lawyer who sits on a zoning board appear before that board?

A: No. The opinion concluded the member-lawyer may not represent clients before the board, citing Rule 1.7(b).

Q: Could the member-lawyer's partners or associates appear if the member recused?

A: No. The opinion concluded the partners and associates are also disqualified, drawing on Rule 1.10 and the need to maintain public confidence in the profession.

Q: Did the zoning statutes change the result?

A: No. The opinion stated KRS 100.171 and 100.220 were not controlling because the question was one of professional ethics.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets KRPC 1.7(b) (conflicts of interest; Model Rule 1.7) for the member-lawyer and KRPC 1.10 (imputation of conflicts; Model Rule 1.10) for the firm, and references Rule 1.11 (former and current government officers; Model Rule 1.11). The conflict is imputed firm-wide rather than cured by the member's recusal.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.7(b) / KRPC 1.7(b) (conflicts of interest)
• MR 1.10 / KRPC 1.10 (imputation of conflicts within a firm)
• MR 1.11 / KRPC 1.11 (former and current government officers and employees)

Statutes:

• KRS 100.171 and 100.220 (held not controlling on the ethics question)

Other opinions cited:

• New Jersey Op. 15; Michigan Op. 179

See also

• KBA Ethics Op. E-371: Alderman's Firm Before a Planning Commission
• KBA Ethics Op. E-363: City Contract Lawyer Defending Criminal Cases
• KBA Ethics Op. E-373: Law Firm Subsidizing a Prosecutor's Office

Source

• Landing page: https://kybar.org/For-Members/Rules-Ethics-Information/Ethics-Opinions
• Original PDF: https://kybar.org/Portals/0/Admin/Ethics%20Opinions/KBA_E-347.pdf

Original opinion text

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

KENTUCKY BAR ASSOCIATION
Ethics Opinion KBA E-347
Issued: March 1991 (Revised June 1991)

Since the adoption of the Rules of Professional Conduct in 1990, the Kentucky
Supreme Court has adopted various amendments, and made substantial
revisions in 2009. For example, this opinion refers to Rules 1.7, 1.10 and 1.11,
which were substantially amended. Lawyers should consult the current version
of the rules and comments, SCR 3.130 (available at http://www.kybar.org),
before relying on this opinion.

Question:

A lawyer is a member of Zoning Board or Planning Commission. May his
partners or associates represent clients before the Board or Commission if
the lawyer member disqualifies himself from any participation in the
matter?

Answer:

No.

References:

Rules 1.7(b), 1.11; New Jersey Op. 15, Maru doc. 1501; Michigan Op. 179,
Maru. doc. 1353; KRS 100.171 and 100.220; 56 KLJ 556 (1968).
OPINION

The lawyer member of the Board or Commission may not represent clients before
the Board. Rule 1.7(b). We are of the opinion that the maintenance of public confidence in
the profession demands that the lawyer' partners and associates also be disqualified from
representing clients before the Board or Commission. Cf. Rule 1.10. KRS 100.171 and
100.220 are not controlling, since the matter is one of professional ethics.

Note to Reader
This ethics opinion has been formally adopted by the Board of Governors of the
Kentucky Bar Association under the provisions of Kentucky Supreme Court Rule 3.530
(or its predecessor rule). The Rule provides that formal opinions are advisory only.