Can a firm do criminal defense work in a district court covering a city where one of its lawyers sits on the city council?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned whether members of a law firm would be prohibited from doing criminal defense work in a local district court that encompasses a city in which another firm member sits on the city council. The committee reviewed Formal Opinion 149, which raised a similar related question, and enclosed a copy.

After discussion, the committee was of the opinion that the facts did not present a per se conflict that would preclude firm members from engaging in criminal defense work, but rather might raise a potential conflict in a particular case, which would have to be dealt with accordingly in that case.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1990, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Washington 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Does a firm member on the city council bar the firm from criminal defense in that city's court?

A: Under this 1990 opinion, no per se; the committee was of the opinion the facts did not present a per se conflict precluding the work.

Q: So the firm can never have a conflict here?

A: Not so. The committee was of the opinion that a potential conflict might arise in a particular case, which would have to be dealt with accordingly in that case.

Q: What related authority did the committee consider?

A: Formal Opinion 149, which the committee said raised a similar, related question, and which it enclosed.

Background and rules framework

At the time of this opinion, Washington's RPC 1.7 governed conflicts of interest, the subject the Model Rules place in Rule 1.7. The committee declined to treat a firm member's council seat as a categorical bar and instead located any conflict in the facts of a specific case.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.7 (conflicts of interest)
• Washington RPC 1.7

Other opinions cited:

• WSBA Formal Opinion 149 (similar, related conflict question)

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1340: Defense Appointments Conflicts
• WA Ethics Op. 1351: Representing an Agency While Adverse to It

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=458

Original opinion text

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

The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning whether members of a law firm would be prohibited from doing criminal defense work in a local district court which encompasses a city in which another member of the law firm is a member of the city council. The Committee reviewed Formal Opinion #149, a copy of which is enclosed, which raised a similar, related question. After discussion, the Committee was of the opinion that the facts in your inquiry do not present a per se conflict which would preclude members of the firm from engaging in criminal defense work, but rather might raise a potential conflict in a particular case which would have to be dealt with accordingly in that case.