My partner is counsel to a town's water supply board. Can either of us represent private clients before that town's zoning board of review?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1993. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Attorneys A and B are partners of a law firm. Attorney A serves as legal counsel to the water supply board of a municipality, which is an agency of the municipality. Attorney A asked whether he or she, or Attorney B, may represent clients before the municipality's zoning board of review.
The opinion applies Rule 1.7(a), which bars representing a client whose representation will be directly adverse to another client unless the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not adversely affect the relationship with the other client and each client consents after consultation.
The opinion finds that the attorney has a client-lawyer relationship with the water supply board, but not with the zoning board of review or the municipality, and that there is no interconnection between the agencies or overlap of their functions. It concludes the attorney's representation of the water supply board will not adversely affect the representation of potential clients before the zoning board of review, so Attorneys A and B may represent clients before the municipality's zoning board of review. The opinion notes its guidance is restricted to the Rules of Professional Conduct and does not reach the State Ethics Code or other laws.
In practice
Under this opinion, serving as counsel to one municipal agency does not, by itself, create a Rule 1.7 conflict that bars the lawyer (or the lawyer's partner) from appearing before a different agency of the same municipality. The opinion keys its conclusion to two findings: the lawyer represents only the water supply board (not the municipality or the zoning board), and the two agencies are not interconnected and do not overlap in function. On those facts, it treats appearances before the zoning board as not directly adverse to the existing client. The opinion expressly leaves State Ethics Code and other-law questions outside its scope.
Common questions
Q: Can a firm appear before a town's zoning board when a partner is the water board's counsel?
A: Yes, on these facts. The opinion concludes both partners may represent clients before the municipality's zoning board of review under Rule 1.7.
Q: Why is there no conflict with the municipality?
A: The opinion finds the attorney's client-lawyer relationship is with the water supply board only -- not the zoning board or the municipality -- and that the agencies are not interconnected or overlapping in function.
Q: Does the answer cover the partner who is not the water board's counsel?
A: Yes. The opinion concludes both Attorney A and Attorney B may represent clients before the zoning board of review.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets Rhode Island Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7(a) (conflict of interest: general rule), the analog of Model Rule 1.7. Rule 1.7(a) bars representation directly adverse to another client absent the lawyer's reasonable belief that the relationship will not be adversely affected and each client's consent; the opinion applies it to conclude that representing clients before an unrelated municipal agency is not directly adverse to the lawyer's water-board client.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- MR 1.7 / RI RPC 1.7(a) (conflict of interest; directly adverse representation)
See also
- RI EAP Opinion 93-51: may represent a former client's employer before the same board with consent under 1.7
- RI EAP Opinion 93-62: a legislator-lawyer's partnership with legislative counsel under 1.11
Source
- Landing page: https://www.courts.ri.gov/attorney-resources/Pages/Ethics-Advisory-Panel-default.aspx
- Original PDF: https://www.courts.ri.gov/Opinions/EAP%2093-74.pdf
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
(FINAL)
ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
OPINION #93-74, REQUEST #414
Issued September 14, 1993
Attorneys A and B are partners of a law firm. Attorney A serves as legal counsel to the water supply board of a municipality. The water supply board is an agency of the municipality. Attorney A asks whether he/she or Attorney B may represent clients before the municipality's zoning board of review.
Rule 1.7 entitled "Conflict of Interest: General Rule" provides in pertinent part as follows:
(a) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client will be directly adverse to another client, unless:
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not adversely affect the relationship with the other client; and
(2) each client consents after consultation.
In this case, the inquiring attorney has a client/lawyer relationship with the water supply board. The inquiring attorney does not have such a relationship with the zoning board of review or the municipality. Further, there is no interconnection between the agencies or overlap of their functions. The inquiring attorney's representation of the water supply board will not adversely affect the representation of potential clients before the zoning board of review. The Panel therefore concludes that Attorneys A and B may represent clients before the municipality's zoning board of review.
The Panel's guidance is restricted to interpretations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and does not extend to issues under the State Ethics Code or any other rules, regulations or laws that may have bearing on the issue raised by this inquiry.
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1993 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.