OSB April 2026

Can a law firm represent criminal defendants when one of its lawyers is the city councilor or mayor and city police officers will be witnesses?

Short answer: Yes, qualified. The city is not the firm's client, so RPC 1.7(a)(1) does not apply, and cross-examining a city police officer does not by itself create a conflict; the firm should watch for personal relationships triggering RPC 1.7(a)(2) and confirm any needed informed consent in writing, and the representation does not violate RPC 1.11 on these facts.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2026. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.

Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.

About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

A lawyer is an elected city councilor or mayor in the city where the lawyer practices. Members of the lawyer's firm represent defendants charged with state crimes, and city police officers investigate, arrest, and testify in some of those cases. The facts assume the city council does not hire the police officers and holds no confidential city information material to the defendants' cases. The opinion asks whether firm members may represent the criminal defendants when a city police officer may be a witness, and answers "Yes, qualified."

The opinion applies Oregon RPC 1.7 and concludes the current-client conflict provisions are not triggered: RPC 1.7(a)(1) does not apply because the city is not a client of the lawyer or the firm, and RPC 1.7(a)(2) does not apply merely because a firm member may cross-examine a city-employed police officer, citing OSB Formal Ethics Op. No. 2005-102 (rev 2026). The opinion adds that the lawyer should be mindful of any personal relationships with police officers that might create a conflict under RPC 1.7(a)(2) and obtain the client's informed consent, confirmed in writing, as necessary.

The opinion also concludes the representation would not violate Oregon RPC 1.11(c) and (d), the rules on lawyers who hold or held public office. On these facts the firm has no confidential government information about a person that could be used to their material disadvantage, and the public-official restrictions in RPC 1.11(d), such as not using public position for special advantage, are not implicated by the firm's criminal-defense work.

In practice

The opinion holds that, under the current Oregon rules, a firm's criminal-defense practice is not disqualified just because a firm lawyer holds elected city office and city police testify. Per the opinion, the analysis turns on whether the city is a client (it is not) and whether a personal interest or relationship creates a material limitation under RPC 1.7(a)(2); the controlling caution is to screen for personal relationships with officers and to document informed consent in writing where one exists. Verify the current text of Oregon RPC 1.7, 1.10, and 1.11 before relying on any specific point.

Common questions

Q: Does a firm have a conflict in criminal cases just because one of its lawyers is the mayor or a city councilor?

A: No. The opinion concludes the city is not a client of the firm, so Oregon RPC 1.7(a)(1) does not apply, and the elected office alone does not disqualify the firm.

Q: Is cross-examining a city police officer a conflict because the lawyer is a city official?

A: Per the opinion, no. Oregon RPC 1.7(a)(2) does not apply merely because a firm member may cross-examine a police officer employed by the city.

Q: What should the firm still watch for?

A: The opinion directs the lawyer to be mindful of any personal relationships with police officers that might create a conflict under Oregon RPC 1.7(a)(2), and to obtain the client's informed consent confirmed in writing as necessary.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Oregon RPC 1.7 (current-client conflicts), Oregon RPC 1.10(a) (imputation within a firm), and Oregon RPC 1.11(c) and (d) (lawyers holding or having held public office, including confidential government information), corresponding to Model Rules 1.7, 1.10, and 1.11.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

Oregon RPC 1.7 / Model Rule 1.7 (current-client conflicts)
Oregon RPC 1.10(a) / Model Rule 1.10 (imputation of conflicts within a firm)
Oregon RPC 1.11(c), (d) / Model Rule 1.11 (public officers and former government lawyers)
Oregon RPC 1.0(b), (g) (confirmed in writing; informed consent)

Other opinions cited:

OSB Formal Ethics Op. No. 2005-102 (rev 2026) (lawyer as municipal judge representing clients)
Washington Advisory Ops. No. 1581 (1994), 1661 (1996), 1696 (1997), 2054 (2004)

Source

Landing page: https://www.osbar.org/ethics/toc.html
Original PDF: https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-114.pdf

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 2026 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.