WSBA 1992

Can lawyers in a firm sue the city when one of the firm's lawyers serves on that city's council?

Short answer: The committee concluded RPC 1.7(b) applies, but it lacked the facts to decide whether the conflict could be waived under RPC 1.7(b)(2), and on the limited facts was skeptical that it could.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1992. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.

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 Not binding precedent.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) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

A lawyer asked whether lawyers in the firm would be precluded from representing clients against the city in which the lawyer serves on the city council. The committee was of the opinion that RPC 1.7(b) would apply to the issue, but it did not have enough facts to determine whether the prohibition against such representation, because of any conflict of interest, could be waived pursuant to RPC 1.7(b)(2).

Based on the limited facts presented, the committee was skeptical that the conflict could be waived.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1992, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 firm represent clients against a city when one of its lawyers sits on the city council?

A: The committee said RPC 1.7(b) applies, and on the limited facts it was skeptical the conflict could be waived under RPC 1.7(b)(2).

Q: Did the committee give a definitive answer?

A: No. It said it lacked enough facts to determine whether the conflict could be waived, while expressing skepticism on the facts presented.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied RPC 1.7(b) and the waiver provision RPC 1.7(b)(2) (conflict of interest involving a lawyer's other responsibilities or interests), corresponding to ABA Model Rule 1.7. The committee identified the council member's public role as the source of a potential conflict for the firm's adverse representation of clients against the city, and treated the availability of a waiver as a fact-dependent question it could not resolve on the record presented.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

ABA Model Rule 1.7 (conflict of interest; current clients); Washington RPC 1.7(b) and RPC 1.7(b)(2)

Source

Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=567

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1487
Year Issued: 1992
RPC(s): RPC 1.7(b)
Subject: Conflict of interest; lawyer on city council while firm represents clients adverse to city

The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning whether lawyers in your law firm would be precluded from representing clients against the city in which you serve on the city council. The Committee was of the opinion that RPC 1.7(b) would apply to the issue, but the Committee did not have enough facts to determine whether the prohibition against such representation because of any conflict of interest could be waived pursuant to RPC 1.7(b)(2). Based upon the limited facts presented, the Committee was skeptical that it could be.

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1992 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.