May a lawyer or the lawyer's firm appear before a quasi-judicial administrative panel when a current client of the firm sits on that panel?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer asked whether the lawyer or members of the lawyer's firm could argue cases before a quasi-judicial administrative panel when a current client of the lawyer takes a seat on that panel. The lawyer also asked whether those attorneys could appeal an adverse panel decision through a writ of certiorari, which by definition must name the individual panel members as party defendants.

The committee was of the opinion that if such conduct would violate the appearance of fairness doctrine or other law, then it would violate RPC 8.4(d), which prohibits conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice. The committee tied the ethical result to the underlying appearance-of-fairness analysis rather than treating the panel-membership relationship as a per se violation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1994, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 lawyer appear before an administrative panel whose member is the lawyer's client?

A: The committee said the answer turns on the appearance of fairness doctrine; if appearing there would violate that doctrine or other law, it would violate RPC 8.4(d).

Q: Does naming panel members as defendants in a certiorari appeal change the analysis?

A: The committee treated the certiorari appeal, which must name the individual panel members as party defendants, under the same standard: it would violate RPC 8.4(d) if it offends the appearance of fairness doctrine or other law.

Q: Did the committee find a per se violation?

A: No. It framed the RPC 8.4(d) result as contingent on whether the conduct would violate the appearance of fairness doctrine or other law.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied RPC 8.4(d) (corresponding to ABA Model Rule 8.4(d)), which makes it professional misconduct to engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Rather than resolve the appearance-of-fairness question itself, the committee made the disciplinary rule track that external doctrine: a violation of the appearance of fairness doctrine or other law in this setting would also be a violation of RPC 8.4(d).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice); Washington RPC 8.4(d)

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1034: Using a Court Reporter Who Is a Client
• WA Ethics Op. 1124: Defendant's Threat to Sue Prosecutor

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=637

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1556
Year Issued: 1994
RPC(s): RPC 8.4(d)
Subject: Conflict of interest; law firm appearing before administrative panel that includes law firm's client

The Committee reviewed your inquiry asking, first, whether a lawyer or members of the lawyer's law firm may appear to argue cases before a quasi-judicial administrative panel when a current client of the lawyer assumes a position on the panel. Second, you asked whether those attorneys may appeal an adverse decision by the panel through a writ of certiorari which, by definition, must name the individual panel members as party defendants. The Committee was of the opinion that if such conduct would violate the appearance of fairness doctrine or other law, then it would violate RPC 8.4(d) prohibiting conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice.