A Primer for Government Lawyers Faced with Officials' Conflicts

Anonymous

Wed, 04/14/2010 - 11:57

Conflicts

Today I came across the <a href="http://www.mrsc.org/index.aspx" target="”_blank”">Municipal
Research and Services Center of Washington</a> (State) website. MRSC is
"private, non-profit organization based in Seattle," whose mission is
"to promote excellence in Washington local government through
professional consultation, research and information services." 
 
Since what's good for Washington local governments is good for any
local government, this website is a good resource to know about. It
includes a page of links to <a href="http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/personnel/ethics.aspx" target="”_blank”">sample local
ethics codes</a>, a page on <a href="http://www.mrsc.org/Publications/mrnews/articles/ethicsingovernmentMar0…; target="”_blank”">Washington
state laws governing local government ethics</a>, including the
consequences of violating each law, and a <a href="http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/legal/conflict/conflweb.aspx" target="”_blank”">conflicts
of interest page</a> that includes court decisions and AG opinions. 
 
But, at least for me, the most interesting document on the website is
the <a href="http://www.mrsc.org/ArtDocMisc/EthicsPrimer2010.pdf" target="”_blank”">Public
Law Ethics Primer For Government Lawyers</a> prepared by the Washington
State Municipal Attorneys Association and revised in 2010, after this blog post first appeared. Although primarily a legal
ethics primer, there is an important overlap with government ethics
when it comes to the representation of officials, especially when
conflicts are involved. The primer attempts to answer the difficult
question, What are a government lawyer's obligations when officials act
not in the public interest, but rather in their personal interest?

Who's the Client 
The first step in the primer is determining who the client is. The
primer supports the entity approach which, in the case of government
lawyers, according to <a href="http://cases.justia.com/us-court-of-appeals/F3/112/910/585109/" target="”_blank”">In
re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum</a>, 112 F.3d 910 (8th Cir. 1997), cert.
denied, 1997, means that a government lawyer represents the
office, and the official only when acting in an official capacity. 
 
In practice, this means that, "if internal conflict exists between
officials, and the lawyer is receiving conflicting directions, the
lawyer should take the issue to the highest authority within the entity
to resolve the conflict and should provide that highest authority with
a reasoned legal opinion on the issue. The lawyer may need to have the
political body vote on the directions given to the lawyer." This
follows <a href="http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/rule_1_13.html" target="”_blank”">ABA
Model Rule 1.13</a>. 
 
Officials tend to treat government lawyers as their personal lawyer.
The chair of a body will give directions to counsel, as will members of
the executive branch. How often do political bodies follow the primer's suggestion and vote, not on what to
do with legal advice, but rather on what directions should be given
to a government lawyer? And how often are such directions debated and
decided in public? Not very often, I think. 
 
The primer recommends that, when officials "appear to believe that you
represent them in their individual capacity, clarify to them
that you represent the municipality as a whole as directed by
the public officials." 
 
Attorney-Client Privilege 
Also important for government ethics is the primer's consideration of
the bounds of attorney-client privilege in a government context: 
<ul>
 Hypothetical: The Mayor advises you that you
should win the upcoming law suit easily because he took the precaution
of secretly taping all his meetings with his former deputy, the current
plaintiff. Your client is the City, not the Mayor. While in most cases
the official acts for and on behalf of the client, he or she does not
do so when violating the law. 
 
 Practice Consideration: When is it necessary
for a governmental attorney (ethically) to advise a public employee or
official that he/she should secure private counsel? Any time the
attorney believes that the individual interests of the official will
conflict with those of the public agency. If the only defense available
to the public agency is that the official acted improperly and without
authority, then this would be necessary. 
</ul>
In other words, government lawyers should not represent an official who is violating the law, including ethics laws. Faced with an
official's conflict situation, a government lawyer should stop representing that official
and suggest that he or she hire private counsel. Because government
attorneys are always supposed to represent the entity or position, they
are not in a position to provide advice regarding conflicts, other than
to tell the official to seek neutral advice, either from private
counsel or an ethics commission or ethics officer. 
 
And yet local government attorneys give ethics
advice all the time. 
 
Executive Sessions 
Similarly, if a board in executive session wants to
discuss a matter that is not within one of the executive session
exceptions, that is, when a board chooses not to recognize the public
interest in transparency as clearly delineated in a freedom of
information law, what is the government lawyer's obligation? Here is a
hypothetical from the primer: 
<ul>
In an executive session to discuss litigation
relating to a City's zoning ordinances, the Mayor suddenly says, "Now
that the media's out of here, let's plan how we're going to adopt this
new newspaper tax." Despite cautioning the Council that this topic is
not authorized for executive session, the discussion continues on the
issue of the tax. What is the attorney's ethical duty with respect to
the unlawful meeting? The attorney should warn the public body that it
is authorized to conduct an executive session for certain limited
purposes, and if it wishes to proceed with other matters, the public
meeting should reconvene. 
</ul>
The hypothetical doesn't suggest what to do if the
attorney's advice is ignored, but all a government lawyer would have to do is threaten to walk out of the meeting. No
board would want to put itself in the position of explaining, or
failing to explain, why a government lawyer walked out of an executive
session. However, how many government lawyers would have the nerve to actually walk toward the door? 
 
Lawyers' Pre- and Post-Employment Rule 
It's also worth noting that <a href="http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mrpc/rule_1_11.html">Rule 1.11 of the
ABA Model Rules</a> involves Special Conflicts of Interest for Former
and Current Government Officers and Employees, who happen to be
attorneys. This rule is effectively a conflict and post-employment (as
well as pre-employment) rule that covers all government lawyers,
whatever their local or state laws say. This doesn't mean that lawyers
are not subject to ethics commission enforcement, only that whether or not there are equivalent
local or state conflict and post-employment laws, these rules of professional
conduct apply. They also apply to a government lawyer's past, future, and present law firm. 
 
There's a lot more information in this excellent
primer for local government lawyers. City and county attorneys have a very tough job, and one of
the toughest parts is dealing their own conflicts, as well as
officials' conflicts. 
 
For a more free-ranging primer, see <a href="http://cgt.msstate.edu/pdf/2004/board_attorney_handbook_04.pdf">A
Handbook for County Board Attorneys in Mississippi </a>(2004),
prepared by the Center for Governmental Training & Technology, in
association with the Mississippi Association of County Board Attorneys.
Its ethics section is largely based on the Washington primer, but this
is a small part of an extensive, 355-page handbook in PDF format. 
 
Robert Wechsler 
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics 
 
---

Search

A Primer for Government Lawyers Faced with Officials' Conflicts

Tags

Share This Page