Opinion 1626

The Committee discussed your inquiry regarding the ethical considerations of members or associates of a law firm representing claimants or defendants adverse to the city when a member of the firm is a city council member. As there is no attorney-client relationship with the city council, 1.7(a) does not apply; however, RPC 1.7(b) will always apply. If in a specific situation, a problem under RPC 1.7(b) exists, then client consent after full disclosure is necessary. Under case law, specific circumstances may create a non-waivable conflict, but the Committee does not address this issue.

It was the opinion of the Committee that in a directly adversarial matter, the attorney can recuse himself or herself from addressing that issue on the council.

Whether the firm may represent a claimant against the city under RPC 1.10 depends on the facts of a specific case, and whether the firm's representation of the claimant would potentially or materially be affected. If there is a conflict under RPC 1.10, then withdrawal from representation is necessary.

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.