When a law firm partner sits on city council, can the firm's other lawyers represent clients against the city or appear in city court?

Plain-English summary

One partner of a small firm (two partners and an associate) was a member of a local city council. The inquiry asked, first, whether another member of the firm could represent clients with dealings adverse to the city, and second, whether another firm member could represent clients in city court.

On the first question, the committee concluded that the firm's other lawyers could not represent clients with adverse dealings against the city. It read Rule 1.7(b) to bar a lawyer from a representation that is materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to a third person, so the councilman could not represent a client adverse to the city (consistent with prior Advisory Opinion 82-22); under Rule 1.10(a), that disqualification was imputed to the rest of his firm. On the second question, the committee concluded that the Rules did not prohibit the councilman's partners from appearing in city court. The committee noted that the bases for its earlier contrary advice (DR 8-101 and Ethical Considerations 8-8 and 9-6 under the old Code, applied in Advisory Opinion 82-22) had no counterpart in the Rules, and nothing in the Rules disqualified the councilman himself from city court. Because Rule 1.10(a)'s imputed disqualification applies only if the councilman is disqualified, and he was not, his firm members were likewise not barred. The committee added that relevant State Ethics Commission opinions (Nos. 83-004 and 84-020) advised against council members and their partners appearing before city courts and should be reviewed.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1990, before the South Carolina Bar's adoption of the 2005 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could the councilman's law partners take cases against the city?

A: The committee said no. The councilman was barred under Rule 1.7(b) from opposing the city, and Rule 1.10(a) imputed that disqualification to his firm.

Q: Could the firm's lawyers appear in city court?

A: The committee said the Rules did not prohibit it. The old Code provisions behind its earlier contrary advice had no counterpart in the Rules, so neither the councilman nor his firm was disqualified from city court under the Rules.

Q: Did the State Ethics Commission take a different view?

A: Yes. The committee noted that Commission Opinions 83-004 and 84-020 advised against council members and their partners appearing before city courts, and said those opinions should be reviewed.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Rule 1.7(b) (a representation materially limited by responsibilities to a third person) and Rule 1.10(a) (imputed disqualification within a firm), corresponding to Model Rules 1.7 and 1.10. The committee contrasted the Rules with the former Code's DR 8-101 and ECs 8-8 and 9-6, which it found had no counterpart in the Rules, and pointed to separate State Ethics Commission guidance.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• South Carolina RPC 1.7(b) / Model Rule 1.7: a lawyer shall not represent a client where the representation is materially limited by responsibilities to a third person.
• South Carolina RPC 1.10(a) / Model Rule 1.10: one lawyer's conflict is imputed to the lawyer's firm.

Other opinions cited:

• SC Bar Advisory Opinion 82-22: city councilman should not appear in city court or represent clients against the city.
• SC State Ethics Commission Opinions 83-004 and 84-020.

See also

• SC Bar Ethics Op. 90-26: Government Board Member Representing a Juvenile
• SC Bar Ethics Op. 90-22: Updating Title and Foreclosing Against a Former Client

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scbar.org/for-lawyers/quicklinks/legal-resources/ethics-advisory-opinions/ethics-advisory-opinion-90-20/

Original opinion text

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

UPON THE REQUEST OF A MEMBER OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR, THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS RENDERED THIS OPINION ON THE ETHICAL PROPRIETY OF THE INQUIRER’S CONTEMPLATED CONDUCT. THIS COMMITTEE HAS NO DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY. LAWYER DISCIPLINE IS ADMINISTERED SOLELY BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT THROUGH ITS COMMISSION ON LAWYER CONDUCT.

Ethics Advisory Opinion 90-20

One of the partners of a law firm consisting of two partners and one associate is a member of a local city council.

Questions:

1. Can another member of that firm represent clients with other adverse dealings with the city?
2. Can another member of that firm represent clients in city court?

Summary:

1. Other members of the firm having a member on city council would not be able to represent clients with adverse dealings with the city.
2. The Rules of Professional Conduct do not prohibit the partner of a city councilman from representing clients in city court but the State Ethics Commission has advised against such representation.

Opinion:

1. SC Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7 (b) prohibits a lawyer from representing a client if that representation is limited by lawyer's responsibilities to a third person. Thus a member of city council could not represent a client whose interests were adverse to those of the city. This finding is consistent with the conclusions of prior Advisory Opinion 82-22.

The disqualifications of city council member pursuant to Rule 1.7 (b) is imputed to the members of his firm under Rule 1.10 (a). Thus, a member of the firm of a city councilman would be prohibited from representing clients in adverse dealings with the city.

2. The Ethics Advisory Committee previously advised that representation in city court by the city councilman would be inappropriate, based upon Disciplinary Rule 8-101 and Ethical Considerations 8-8 and 9-6. Advisory Opinion 82-22 (City councilman should not appear in city court due to appearance of impropriety, conflict of interest, and possibility of improper influence).

DR 8-101, EC 8-8, and EC 9-6 do not have counterparts in the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct and there is no language in the Rules which prohibits a member of a city councilman's firm from representing clients in city court. The Rules do not disqualify the city councilman from appearing in city court. The imputed disqualification of Rule 1.10 (a) only applies, of course, if the city councilman is disqualified. Since the Rules do not disqualify a city councilman from representing a client in city court, members of his firm are also not prohibited from appearing in city court.

Relevant opinions of the State Ethics Commission should be reviewed, however. See State Ethics Commission Opinion Numbers 83-004 (advising that council members should not represent clients before city courts nor represent clients against the city) and 84-020 (advising that the partner of a city councilman was also preclude from representing clients before city court).