Opinion 1194

The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning ethical questions raised by persons serving as members of the Board of Directors of your defender organization. The Committee could give no opinion regarding whether non-attorney board members could also be members of governmental agencies with which the public defender's office commonly has an adversarial relationship because the Rules of Professional Conduct do not govern the conduct of non-attorneys.

The Committee was of the opinion that an attorney may undertake a contractual obligation to represent clients whom the public defender's office may not represent because of conflicts of interest, although the Board member's participation in the decisions or actions of the public defender's office must be limited in accordance with RPC 6.3. Finally, the Committee was of the opinion that the pertinent authority for resolving potential conflicts when a Board member presides as a judge pro tem in cases involving clients of the public defender's office is the Code of Judicial Conduct because in that instance the Board member would be acting as a judge, not a lawyer, and his or her conduct would not be governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct.

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.