Can one lawyer in a firm represent a utility before a city council while a partner in the same firm serves as the city attorney?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry asked whether it violated any law or Canon for a member of a law firm to represent a public utilities company before a city governing body (the city council) while a member of the same firm served that same body in a legal advisory capacity (the city attorney).

The Committee was of the opinion that such representation would violate Canon 6, which prohibits the representation of conflicting interests. Several members were also of the opinion that it would violate Canon 34. All members were definitely of the opinion that the acts of one partner are the acts of the partnership, and that members of a partnership should not divide their loyalties and interests. The vote was 9-0.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1953, under the former Texas Canons of Ethics, which the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct replaced effective January 1, 1990. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis; conflicting interests are now addressed by ABA Model Rule 1.7 and imputation within a firm by Model Rule 1.10. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can one partner appear for a utility before the city council if another partner is the city attorney?

A: No. The Committee found this conflicting representation under Canon 6 because the partnership cannot serve both the city body and a party appearing before it (9-0).

Q: Why did the conflict reach the whole firm and not just the one lawyer?

A: The Committee was definite that the acts of one partner are the acts of the partnership, so the partner serving the city and the partner appearing for the utility could not divide their loyalties.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canon 6 (adverse influences and conflicting interests), with several members also citing Canon 34, applied to two partners on opposite sides of a city council matter. The modern analogs are ABA Model Rule 1.7 (conflict of interest: current clients) and Model Rule 1.10 (imputation of conflicts within a firm).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.7 (conflict of interest: current clients), as the modern analog
• MR 1.10 (imputation of conflicts within a firm), as the modern analog
• Texas Canon 6 (adverse influences and conflicting interests)
• Texas Canon 34 (cited by several members)

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 82: City Alderman Defending in City Court
• TX Ethics Op. 104: Imputed Conflict From a New Partner
• TX Ethics Op. 66: Estate Lawyer Filing a Claim vs. Estate

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-65/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_65.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

Is it a violation of law or any Canon of Ethics for a Texas lawyer who is a member of a law firm to represent a public utilities company before a city governing body, i.e., city council, while a member of the same law firm serves the same city governing body in a legal advisory capacity, i.e., city attorney?

18 Baylor L. Rev. 224 (1966)

CONFLICTING INTERESTS - CONFIDENCES OF A CLIENT
A member of a law firm may not represent a public utilities company before a city governing body while a member of the same firm serves the same city governing body in a legal advisory capacity.

Canon 6, 34.

It is the opinion of this committee that such representation would constitute a violation of Canon 6, which prohibits the representation of conflicting interests. Several members were also of the opinion that such representation would also violate Canon 34. All of the members are definitely of the opinion that the acts of one partner are the acts of the partnership, and that members of a partnership should not divide their loyalties and interests. (9-0)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 65 (1953)