Can a lawyer sue the State when another lawyer in the same office previously served on a state commission dealing with a related subject?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1986. 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
The committee was asked whether one lawyer in an office could represent a plaintiff in a lawsuit against the State when another lawyer in the same office had previously served on a governor's commission on a related subject. Based on the facts of the inquiry, the committee was of the opinion that there was no conflict of interest or breach of confidential information.
The committee was further of the opinion that the conduct would not violate RPC 1.11, because of the narrow definition of "matter" in RPC 1.11(d). On that definition, the colleague's prior commission service was not the same matter as the lawsuit against the State.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1986, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. RPC 1.11 on successive government and private employment, including its definition of "matter," was later renumbered and amended. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Does one lawyer's prior government service disqualify the whole office?
A: On these facts, no. The committee was of the opinion that there was no conflict of interest or breach of confidential information for a lawyer in the office to sue the State despite a colleague's prior commission service.
Q: Why did RPC 1.11 not bar the representation?
A: The committee was of the opinion that the conduct would not violate RPC 1.11 because of the narrow definition of "matter" in RPC 1.11(d); the prior commission work was not the same matter as the new lawsuit.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies Washington RPC 1.11 on successive government and private employment, corresponding to Model Rule 1.11. The committee's analysis turned on the definition of "matter" in RPC 1.11(d); because that definition is narrow, the colleague's earlier service on a governor's commission on a related subject did not make the later lawsuit the same matter.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Washington RPC 1.11 (successive government and private employment), corresponding to Model Rule 1.11.
- Washington RPC 1.11(d) (definition of "matter").
See also
- WSBA Ethics Op. 1002: a city attorney serving on a civic body adverse to the city
- WSBA Ethics Op. 916: a prosecutor's conflict involving child-support claimants
- WSBA Ethics Op. 934: a prosecutor's conflict in support-enforcement and paternity work
Source
- Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=161
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Advisory Opinion: 1050
Year Issued: 1986
RPC(s): RPC 1.11
Subject: Conflict of interest; successive government and private employment
The Committee was of the opinion that, based upon the facts in your inquiry, there is no conflict of interest or breach of confidential information for a lawyer in your office to represent a plaintiff in a lawsuit against the State when another lawyer in your office had previously served on [a governor's commission on a related subject]. The Committee was further of the opinion that such conduct would not violate RPC 1.11 because of the narrow definition of "matter" in RPC 1.11(d).
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1986 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.