Is a part-time contract lawyer 'associated with' a firm for conflict purposes, so the firm's conflict bars the contract lawyer too?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry asked whether a lawyer working part-time on a contract basis with a law firm could represent a client the firm had determined it could not represent because of a conflict of interest. The committee understood that the contract lawyer personally had no prior representation of the client, of the other parties involved in the partnership or corporation, or in any present action by the firm to recover attorney's fees owed by the corporation.

On those facts, the committee was of the opinion that the contract lawyer is associated with the firm as that term is used in RPC 1.10(a), and therefore can represent the client only if able to act in compliance with that rule.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1988, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. The rules it discusses, RPC 1.7 (conflict of interest; general rule) and RPC 1.10(a) (imputed disqualification), correspond to Model Rules 1.7 and 1.10 and have since been amended. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Is a part-time contract lawyer treated as associated with the firm?

A: Per the opinion, yes. The committee was of the opinion that a lawyer working part-time on a contract basis with a firm is "associated with" the firm as that term is used in RPC 1.10(a).

Q: Can the contract lawyer take a client the firm had to decline for a conflict?

A: Only in compliance with RPC 1.10(a). Because the contract lawyer is associated with the firm, the committee said the lawyer can represent the client only if able to act consistently with that rule.

Q: Did it matter that the contract lawyer had no prior contact with the client or parties?

A: The committee took those facts as given (no prior representation of the client, the other parties, or in the fee-recovery action) and still concluded that the lawyer is associated with the firm under RPC 1.10(a).

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Washington RPC 1.7 (conflict of interest; general rule) and RPC 1.10(a) (imputed disqualification), corresponding to Model Rules 1.7 and 1.10. The committee made the result turn on the meaning of "associated with" a firm: a part-time contract lawyer falls within that term, so the firm's conflict is imputed and the contract lawyer can take the declined client only if able to comply with RPC 1.10(a).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Washington RPC 1.7 (conflict of interest; general rule), corresponding to Model Rule 1.7.
• Washington RPC 1.10(a) (imputed disqualification), corresponding to Model Rule 1.10.

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 1219: a legal research business serving firms and when RPC 1.10 bars work
• WSBA Ethics Op. 911: a contract attorney working for several firms and conflicts with the old firm
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1217: pro bono volunteers from different firms not "in association" for imputation

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=323

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1243
Year Issued: 1988
RPC(s): RPC 1.7; 1.10(a)
Subject: Conflict of interest; imputed disqualification; contract lawyer

The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning whether you, working part-time on a contract basis with a law firm, could represent a client which the law firm has determined it could not represent because of a conflict of interest. The Committee understood that you personally had no prior representation of the client nor the other parties involved in the partnership or corporation nor in any present action by the law firm to recover attorney's fees owed by the corporation. The Committee was of the opinion, based upon the facts as presented, that you are associated with the law firm as that term is used in RPC 1.10(a), and therefore you can only represent this client if you are able to act in compliance with that rule.