Another dilemma is presented when a municipal attorney's private law firm wishes to represent a client before a municipal board. May the firm do so without causing a conflict of interest situation for the municipal lawyer? The answer may not be so clear-cut, and may depend upon: provisions in state and local government ethics laws; the Code of Professional Responsibility; a determination as to whether the municipality will hire special outside counsel to offer advice on the matter; and an inquiry as to whether the municipal attorney will financially benefit from her firm's representation of the client before the municipality. [FN15]
In a recent New Hampshire case, the chair of a county commission was ordered disqualified from participation in a determination of public necessity prior to the initiation of eminent domain proceedings since the chair was a lawyer and his law partner was representing two of the landowners. [FN16] Since the chair had already participated in the proceeding, the court remanded the matter for a new proceeding. [FN17]
In Pennsylvania, an attorney may not represent a township in making amendments to their zoning code when a member of his law firm conducts the hearing and rules on objections. [FN18] The court warned, "All municipal adjudicative bodies must avoid unnecessary conflicts and commingling of incompatible functions whenever possible." [FN19] Since this procedure was susceptible to prejudice, it was prohibited. In relying on an opinion of the Ethics Committee of the Mississippi State Bar, the Attorney General opined that it would be a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility for a law firm to represent a client who is seeking to establish a facility in the city while the firm has been retained to assist the city attorney in the defense of an unrelated voting rights case against the city. [FN20]
No comments:
Post a Comment