Can a prosecutor bid on a public defender contract that begins after their term ends?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry asked whether a prosecuting attorney may bid on a public defender contract to take effect after his term of office has ended. The committee concluded that it is impermissible under RPC 1.7 for the prosecuting attorney to bid on the contract.

The committee declined to opine on whether this "dual participation" would violate Washington state law on conflict of interest. It added that if such laws were violated by the action, the result would be a violation of RPC 8.4.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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. Washington's RPC 1.7 and 8.4 correspond to ABA Model Rules 1.7 (conflict of interest: current clients) and 8.4 (misconduct).

Common questions

Q: Can a prosecutor bid on a public defender contract in the same jurisdiction?

A: The committee concluded it is impermissible under RPC 1.7 for a prosecuting attorney to bid on the public defender contract.

Q: Does it matter that the contract would start after the prosecutor's term ends?

A: No. The inquiry concerned a contract to take effect after the prosecutor's term of office had ended, and the committee still concluded that bidding on it is impermissible under RPC 1.7.

Q: Did the committee address state conflict-of-interest statutes?

A: It declined to opine on whether the "dual participation" would violate Washington state law on conflict of interest, but said that if such laws were violated, the result would be a violation of RPC 8.4.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Washington RPC 1.7 (conflict of interest) and RPC 8.4 (misconduct), corresponding to ABA Model Rules 1.7 and 8.4. The committee grounded the impropriety of the prosecutor's bid in RPC 1.7, and tied a possible RPC 8.4 violation to any violation of Washington's separate conflict-of-interest statutes, on which it expressed no opinion.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.7 (conflict of interest: current clients); Washington RPC 1.7
• ABA Model Rule 8.4 (misconduct); Washington RPC 8.4

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1833: Part-Time Prosecutor's Conflict
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1124: Defendant Threatens to Sue DA
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1050: Former Government Lawyer Conflict

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1033

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1840
Year Issued: 1998
RPC(s): RPC 1.7; 8.4
Subject: Prosecuting attorney bidding on public defender contract to take effect after end of term of office

I have been instructed by the Rules of Professional Conduct Committee to respond to your ethical inquiry #1840 concerning whether a prosecuting attorney may bid on a public defender contract to take effect after his term of office has ended.

It is the opinion of the committee that it is impermissible under RPC 1.7 for the prosecuting attorney to bid on the contract. The committee offers no opinion on whether this "dual participation" would violate Washington state law on conflict of interest. However, if such laws were violated by this action, the result would be a violation of RPC 8.4.