UPON THE REQUEST OF A MEMBER OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR, THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS RENDERED THIS OPINION ON THE ETHICAL PROPRIETY OF THE INQUIRER’S CONTEMPLATED CONDUCT. THIS COMMITTEE HAS NO DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY. LAWYER DISCIPLINE IS ADMINISTERED SOLELY BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT THROUGH ITS COMMISSION ON LAWYER CONDUCT.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 90-20
One of the partners of a law firm consisting of two partners and one associate is a member of a local city council.
Questions:
1. Can another member of that firm represent clients with other adverse dealings with the city?
2. Can another member of that firm represent clients in city court?
Summary:
1. Other members of the firm having a member on city council would not be able to represent clients with adverse dealings with the city.
2. The Rules of Professional Conduct do not prohibit the partner of a city councilman from representing clients in city court but the State Ethics Commission has advised against such representation.
Opinion:
1. SC Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7 (b) prohibits a lawyer from representing a client if that representation is limited by lawyer's responsibilities to a third person. Thus a member of city council could not represent a client whose interests were adverse to those of the city. This finding is consistent with the conclusions of prior Advisory Opinion 82-22.
The disqualifications of city council member pursuant to Rule 1.7 (b) is imputed to the members of his firm under Rule 1.10 (a). Thus, a member of the firm of a city councilman would be prohibited from representing clients in adverse dealings with the city.
2. The Ethics Advisory Committee previously advised that representation in city court by the city councilman would be inappropriate, based upon Disciplinary Rule 8-101 and Ethical Considerations 8-8 and 9-6. Advisory Opinion 82-22 (City councilman should not appear in city court due to appearance of impropriety, conflict of interest, and possibility of improper influence).
DR 8-101, EC 8-8, and EC 9-6 do not have counterparts in the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct and there is no language in the Rules which prohibits a member of a city councilman's firm from representing clients in city court. The Rules do not disqualify the city councilman from appearing in city court. The imputed disqualification of Rule 1.10 (a) only applies, of course, if the city councilman is disqualified. Since the Rules do not disqualify a city councilman from representing a client in city court, members of his firm are also not prohibited from appearing in city court.
Relevant opinions of the State Ethics Commission should be reviewed, however. See State Ethics Commission Opinion Numbers 83-004 (advising that council members should not represent clients before city courts nor represent clients against the city) and 84-020 (advising that the partner of a city councilman was also preclude from representing clients before city court).