Opinion 2005

The inquirer asks whether a law firm may act as attorney for a municipality for which a member of the firm acts as the municipal judge. The committee opined that the inquiry may raise substantial questions of conflicts of interest arising from the dual roles of a member of the firm serving as a judge and the firm serving as civil municipal counsel at the same time. The committee is unable to approve the proposed relationship as complying with the RPCs.

Potential problems which may exist are: one, the city is a party in every criminal, traffic and many civil proceedings while the firm represents the city. The judge would be sitting on a firm client’s case potentially violating RPC 1.7(b), 1.10 and 8.4(f). Two, individual transactional conflicts are likely to be so difficult to avoid as to render the dual roles functionally unworkable in many instances. Three, the committee does not opine on the Code of Judicial Conduct applicable to the judicial role proposed. There may be substantial issues which would give rise to RPC 8.4(f) violations. Advice about the Code of Judicial Conduct is available to a judge from the Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee through the Office of administrator of the Courts in Olympia.

Advisory Opinions are provided for the education of the Bar and reflect the opinion of the Committee on Professional Ethics (CPE) or its predecessors. Advisory Opinions are provided pursuant to the authorization granted by the Board of Governors, but are not individually approved by the Board and do not reflect the official position of the Bar association. Laws other than the Washington State Rules of Professional Conduct may apply to the inquiry. The Committee's answer does not include or opine about any other applicable law other than the meaning of the Rules of Professional Conduct.