ISBA Ethics Opinions on Government Representation

A State’s Attorney may represent his county in union negotiations while simultaneously calling law enforcement personnel as witnesses in criminal cases provided the attorney has completed an analysis of any conflicts of interest pursuant to Rule 1.7 of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct.

A lawyer may not continue to represent a plan commission or city council after the lawyer’s partner has appeared before those bodies to oppose a zoning change. The lawyer’s recusal from the plan commission’s or city council’s consideration of the partner’s zoning matter will not remove the conflict of interest. However, the plan commission and city council may give informed consent to the lawyer’s continued representation in unrelated matters if the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation despite the conflict of interest. If the lawyer’s partner represents others in the zoning matter before the plan commission or city council, the partner must disclose the representation and conform to the applicable rules regarding candor to a tribunal.

Because state government is not one entity composed of all departments under the jurisdiction of the Governor for purposes of resolving conflict of interest questions, a lawyer may represent one state government agency while representing a private party adverse to another state government agency.

It is not necessarily improper for a lawyer whose firm represents a city in defense of a variety of civil matters to undertake representation in unrelated matters of clients charged with violations of the Human Rights Ordinance of the city before its Human Rights Commission if both clients consent after full disclosure.

Any client of any lawyer in a law firm or of the firm itself is a client of every lawyer in the firm for the purpose of conflict of interest analysis.

Representation of a public body client in defense of various civil matters is directly adverse to the interests of that client in representation of another client before the Human Rights Commission, a creature of the city, empowered to enforce the city’s Human Rights Ordinance.

It is not per se improper for a lawyer to sue a current client (a public body) in an unrelated matter if both clients consent after full disclosure.

Whether an attorney "reasonably believes" his dual representation will not adversely affect his relationships is determined by an objective, not subjective, standard based upon what the "reasonable attorney" would believe.

It is permissible for two attorneys to form a partnership where one is a City Attorney prosecuting ordinance violation and the other is a part-time public defender in the same county. However, neither may defend clients charged with violations of said City's ordinances nor charges initiated or investigated by said City's Police Department.

Part-time public defender may represent private client against county with consent of private client after full disclosure of employment relationship with county.