Can a former contract public defender become the city attorney in the same jurisdiction?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned the ethical constraints on a city attorney who had also acted as a contract public defender in the same jurisdiction and had acted as a judge pro tem in the district court.

The committee responded that, as long as the attorney complies with RPC 1.9 and 1.8, the attorney may appropriately act as interim and full-time city attorney. It said the attorney's role as a pro tem superior, municipal, or district court judge was outside the committee's purview. It added that if the attorney had a role in a pro tem judicial capacity in any case in which the attorney had participated as a lawyer, the issue would be one for the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1999, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 1.9 (duties to former clients) and RPC 1.8 (conflict of interest: current clients, specific rules) were restructured in the 2006 revisions, so verify the current rule text before relying on it.

Common questions

Q: Can a former contract public defender serve as the city attorney in the same jurisdiction?

A: The committee concluded that, as long as the attorney complies with RPC 1.9 and 1.8, the attorney may appropriately act as interim and full-time city attorney.

Q: What about the attorney's prior service as a judge pro tem?

A: The committee said that role is outside its purview. If the attorney had sat pro tem in any case in which the attorney had participated as a lawyer, that would be a Code of Judicial Conduct question for the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Washington RPC 1.9 (duties to former clients), corresponding to ABA Model Rule 1.9, and RPC 1.8 (conflict of interest: current clients, specific rules), corresponding to ABA Model Rule 1.8, to a lawyer moving between roles in the same jurisdiction. The committee framed the lawyer-ethics question as one of compliance with those conflict rules and left the judicial-conduct question to the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.9 (duties to former clients); Washington RPC 1.9
• ABA Model Rule 1.8 (conflict of interest: current clients, specific rules); Washington RPC 1.8

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1778: Ex-Prosecutor on a Defense Appeal
• WA Ethics Op. 1350: Former AAG Suing a College
• WA Ethics Op. 1437: No Conflict in Suing a City

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1074

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1881
Year Issued: 1999
RPC(s): RPC 1.8; 1.9
Subject: Conflict of interest; city attorney who previously was contract public defender and judge pro tem

The inquiry concerned the ethical constraints of a city attorney who has also acted as a contract public defender in the same jurisdiction and who also has acted as a judge pro tem in the district court.

The committee responded that as long as an attorney complies with RPC 1.9 and 1.8, the attorney may appropriately act as interim and full time city attorney. The attorney’s role as pro tem superior, municipal or district court judge is outside our purview. If the attorney had a role in a pro tem judicial capacity in any case where the attorney had participated as a lawyer, the issue would be one for the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee.