| LEO Num | Topics | Summary | Date |
1836
 Print
|
| A city attorney represents the city which, pursuant to its charter, acts through an elected mayor, a city council, and a chief administrative officer. If asked by a city council member to prepare an ordinance that would affect the relationship between the city council and the mayor, the city attorney does not have a duty to keep the draft ordinance a secret from the mayor. Absent an organizational policy to the contrary (which would guide the city attorney's disclosure obligations), the city attorney may advise all of the city's constituents of the ordinance if the city attorney determines that the disclosure is in the best interest of the ultimate client (the city). The same is true of the city attorney's disclosure to other members of city council. If a conflict develops between various city constituents, the city attorney may be obligated to suggest that one or more of the constituents engage independent counsel. Although "an organization may adopt appropriate procedures for managing internal conflict issues," the city charter's language requiring the city attorney to represent all city constituents makes it highly unlikely that the city attorney could arrange for different subordinates in his office to represent the city council and the mayor (without sharing information about those separate representations). The charter authorizes the mayor to employ special counsel if a conflict arises with other city constituents. Unless the city attorney's representation of the city will be materially limited, the city attorney can represent all of the city's constituents even if there are policy issue differences among them. If the interest of one constituent becomes adverse to the organization's (city's) interest, that constituent should obtain separate representation. As the city's lawyer, the city attorney "may render legal opinions or conclusions with which a [city] constituent might strongly disagree or perceive as favoring another constituent." | 5/6/2008 |
1128
Print
|
| A county attorney represents a Planning Commission, and also represents a plaintiff in an action against a member of the Planning Commission in an unrelated matter. The Bar declines to determine if the individual members of the Commission or the Commission as a whole is the "client" (labeling it a "legal question"). The answer would provide guidance on what consents the lawyer would need. | 10/14/1988 |
1454
Print
|
| A law firm rendered an opinion to a federal agency which took over a financial institution. The law firm also represents the same agency in unrelated matters. The firm has now been asked to represent an executive of the financial institution in a grand jury probe related to the receivership.The law firm may not represent the executive if it had obtained material secrets or confidences while rendering an opinion to the agency or in its current unrelated representation of the agency. The representation would otherwise be proper as long as the agency and the executive consent.If adversity develops between the agency and the executive during the course of the representation, the law firm must withdraw from representing the executive in the grand jury proceeding and the agency in the unrelated matter. | 3/13/1992 |
0353
Print
|
| A law firm representing a labor union may not communicate with the union's president if the president is an adverse party in current litigation involving the union. | 1/7/1980 |
1744
Print
|
| A lawyer employed by a non-profit organization and a private practitioner who sometimes handles cases pro bono for the non-profit organization may share court-awarded attorneys’ fees with the organization (although it would be unethical for a lawyer who accepts a pro bono case to charge or collect a contingent fee for the representation). The court’s review of the fees and the fact that the client is not paying the fees eliminate any worry about fee-sharing or overreaching by the lawyers. | 6/27/2000 |
1092
Print
|
| A lawyer represented a regional jail commission funded by the state, a county and two cities. One city appointed one of the five voting commissioners. The lawyer may represent a client in a civil rights case against the city's police department and a city police officer if the client and the jail commission consent. [The city's partial funding of the jail commission should not have made it a "client" for conflicts purposes.] | 6/16/1988 |
ABA-380
Print
|
| A lawyer representing a fiduciary owes a duty to the fiduciary and not to the beneficiaries. | 5/9/1994 |
1457
Print
|
| A lawyer represents a condominium board. During the deposition preparation of one board member (the board's former president), the lawyer learns that the president exceeded the president's authority and contributed to the injury of which plaintiff complains. The lawyer must advise the former president to seek independent counsel. The lawyer may not continue to prepare the former president for the deposition because the former president and the condominium board have conflicting interests which cannot be cured by consent. The lawyer may not tell the condominium board what the former president has told the lawyer, unless the lawyer had earlier advised the former president that the lawyer represented the condominium board and not the president, and that any information divulged during the deposition preparation would be shared with the board. Although the lawyer had no attorney-client relationship with the former president, absent such disclaimer the meeting "created an expectation of confidentiality which must be protected by the attorney." The opinion seems to indicate that the lawyer may also find it nearly impossible to continue representing the condominium board, because the lawyer cannot both represent the condominium board and protect the confidences of the former president. [Rule 1.13 provides guidance for lawyers who represent organizations and face this situation. The litigation in this opinion was pending in D.C. so under Rule 8.5 the D.C. court's ethics rules would now govern this situation.] | 4/13/1992 |
ABA-467
Print
|
| ABA Model Rules 5.1 and 5.3 apply in the same way to prosecutors as to other lawyers with managerial or other supervisory responsibilities, including the responsibility to assure that all prosecutors under their managerial or direct supervision comply with the ethics rules. "Where prosecutors have both managerial and direct supervisory authority, they may, depending on the circumstances, be required to fulfill both sets of obligations." | 9/8/2014 |
0598
Print
|
| An in-house lawyer for an insurance company may represent an insured, but must remember that the insured is the client. Among other things, the insured's lawyer may not reveal information acquired from the insured that would allow the carrier to deny coverage. [Approved by the Supreme Court 3/8/85, effective 6/1/85.] | 6/1/1985 |
1272
Print
|
| An in-house lawyer may not reveal a client's filing of a misleading certificate related to government contract work unless the filing was illegal or fraud is "clearly established." | 10/3/1989 |
0254
Print
|
| Determining whether a lawyer may represent a corporation when the lawyer has been employed by one of two 50% shareholders over the objection of the other 50% shareholder is a legal rather than an ethical question. | 12/3/1974 |
1211
Print
|
| In-house lawyers do have attorney-client relationship with employer, and therefore may not ask for an indemnity agreement. [This LEO was overruled by Rule 1.8(h), which permits such indemnity agreements if the corporation is separately represented.] | 4/19/1989 |