These summaries were prepared by McGuireWoods LLP lawyer Thomas E. Spahn. They are based on the letter opinions issued by the Virginia State Bar. Any editorial comments reflect Mr. Spahn's current personal views, and not the opinions of the Virginia State Bar, McGuireWoods or its clients. 
 Back to main menu

  Print This Leo
LEO NumTopicsSummary

1-Adversity to Current Clients

2-Adversity to Former Clients

18-Consent and Prospective Waivers

48-Criminal Defense Lawyers

51-Government Attorneys

The Commonwealth's Attorney's Office may not prosecute defendants being represented by lawyers at a firm which is representing the Office in collection matters (consent is unavailable, because the client in the criminal cases is the Commonwealth, "which is unable to provide consent"). It would be unreasonable for defense attorneys to believe that their representation of criminal defendants would not be affected by the attorneys' representation of the Office (because the work provides a source of income to the defense attorney). Criminal defense lawyers would not be able to handle collection cases against their former clients without the former clients' consent (which seems "at best, unlikely"), yet the law does not allow the collection lawyer to subcontract cases involving the lawyer's former criminal clients. All of these disqualifications would be imputed to the entire law firm and the Office. The law establishing the collection procedures does not trump the ethics Rules.

Copyright 2000, Thomas E. Spahn