If a public defender's spouse works for the City Attorney, can the public defender handle cases against the City, and is the whole office disqualified?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer employed as a public defender asked about a possible conflict of interest because the lawyer's fiance anticipated becoming employed in the criminal division of the City Attorney's Office. The question was whether the lawyer could represent parties in matters the spouse handled for the City, and whether any disqualification would extend to the lawyers' offices.

The committee was of the opinion that RPC 1.8(i) would prohibit the lawyer from representing a party in a matter in which the spouse represented the City, except upon the consent of the client after consultation regarding the relationship. It further concluded that the disqualification would not be imputed to either of the lawyers' firms, because RPC 1.8(i) is not one of the rules specifically cited in RPC 1.10(a).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1992, before 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can a public defender oppose a spouse who works for the City Attorney?

A: The committee said RPC 1.8(i) barred the lawyer from representing a party in a matter the spouse handled for the City unless the client consented after consultation about the relationship.

Q: Is the public defender's whole office disqualified because of the marriage?

A: No. The committee concluded the disqualification was not imputed to either lawyer's firm, because RPC 1.8(i) is not among the rules cited in RPC 1.10(a).

Q: What clears the individual lawyer to take the matter?

A: The client's consent after consultation regarding the spousal relationship.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the then-current RPC 1.8(i), Washington's rule on conflicts between related lawyers (corresponding to the related-lawyers provision of ABA Model Rule 1.8(i) of that era), together with RPC 1.10(a) on imputation of conflicts (ABA Model Rule 1.10). The committee's analysis turned on the rule's personal-consent requirement and on the fact that RPC 1.10(a) did not list RPC 1.8(i) among the rules whose conflicts are imputed to a firm.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.8(i) (related lawyers; conflicts, as the rule stood at the time) / Washington RPC 1.8(i)
• ABA Model Rule 1.10 (imputation of conflicts) / Washington RPC 1.10(a)

See also

• AL Ethics Op. 1991-40: Kinship Between Opposing Lawyers
• WA Ethics Op. 1432: Imputed Conflict From a Former Partner

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=529

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1449
Year Issued: 1992
RPC(s): RPC 1.8(i); 1.10(a)
Subject: Conflict of interest; lawyer's spouse represents opposing party

The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning a possible conflict of interest where you are employed as a public defender and your fiance anticipates becoming employed in the criminal division of the City Attorney's Office. The committee was of the opinion that RPC 1.8(i) would prohibit you from representing a party in a matter in which your spouse represented the City except upon consent of the client after consultation regarding your relationship. The Committee was further of the opinion that that disqualification would not be imputed to either of your law firms since that is not one the rules specifically cited in RPC 1.10(a).