🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242
WISBAR 1981

Can a deputy city attorney who negotiates and monitors the city's insurance carrier contract also sit on that carrier's board of directors?

Short answer: The opinion concluded that it would be improper. A deputy city attorney who represents the city in contract negotiations with its insurance carrier and monitors the carrier's performance cannot simultaneously sit on the carrier's board, because doing so would create a conflict of interest and divided loyalties.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1981. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 1981
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
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 Not binding precedent.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

Opinion E-81-2 considered a deputy city attorney who represents the city in contract negotiations with the municipality's medical insurance carrier and who also participates in a policy-making body that monitors the carrier's performance under the contract. The question was whether the same lawyer could simultaneously sit on the insurance carrier's board of directors.

The committee said it would be improper, stating there was no question that it would result in a conflict of interest and divided loyalties. It grounded the conclusion in SCR 20.23, which provided that a lawyer should exercise independent professional judgment on behalf of the client. The committee quoted SCR 20.23(1): the professional judgment of a lawyer should be exercised, within the bounds of the law, solely for the benefit of the client and free of compromising influences and loyalties, and neither the lawyer's personal interest, the interest of other clients, nor the desires of third persons should be permitted to dilute the lawyer's loyalty to the client. The committee added that other ethical considerations under SCR 20.23 were also relevant.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1981, before Wisconsin's July 1, 2007 adoption of the revised Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys (the state's Ethics 2000 update), and it applies the former Code provision SCR 20.23 on independent professional judgment. Conflicts of this kind are now analyzed under SCR 20:1.7 / Model Rule 1.7. 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: Can a city attorney who negotiates with the city's insurance carrier serve on the carrier's board?

A: No. The committee concluded that the dual role would be improper because it would result in a conflict of interest and divided loyalties.

Q: What rule did the committee rely on?

A: It relied on SCR 20.23, requiring a lawyer to exercise independent professional judgment solely for the client's benefit, free of compromising influences and loyalties.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the former rule on independent professional judgment, SCR 20.23, to a government lawyer whose public duties (negotiating and monitoring the city's insurance contract) would be in tension with a fiduciary seat on the counterparty's board. The current counterpart is SCR 20:1.7 / Model Rule 1.7, governing concurrent conflicts of interest.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Wis. SCR 20.23, 20.23(1) (independent professional judgment) (former Code); current SCR 20:1.7 / Model Rule 1.7

See also

Source

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1981 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.