Committee on Professional Ethics
Opinion 914
(3/23/12)
Topic: Conflicts among members of a
Legal Aid Conflicts Panel
Digest: Members of a panel of lawyers
established to provide legal assistance to indigent clients when the
Legal Aid Society has a conflict are not members of the same firm for
purpose of conflict analysis as long as the panel members are
independently engaged by, and independently render legal services to,
their indigent clients.
Rules: 1.0(h), 1.6(a), (b), 1.7, 1.8(f), 10
FACTS
1. The inquirer practices in a county that
has an agreement with the Legal Aid Society to provide legal assistance
to indigent clients in criminal and Family Court matters. The
lawyer is a member of a Legal Aid Conflicts Panel, an entity formed to
provide legal representation to indigents when the Legal Aid Society has
a conflict preventing the Society from having one of its staff attorneys
undertake the representation.
QUESTION
2. Is a conflict that disqualifies a member
of the Conflicts Panel imputed to, and thereby disqualify, all members
of the Panel?
OPINION
3. When acting as a “qualified legal
assistance organization,” the Legal Aid Society falls within the
definition of “law firm” under the Rules of Professional
Conduct. As a result, absent some exception, a conflict infecting
any one attorney-employee of the Legal Aid Society is imputed to all
others in the same office. Rules 1.0(h), 1.7, 1.10. To meet
the needs of indigent clients when the Legal Aid Society has a conflict,
the county has established a Legal Aid Conflicts Panel comprised of
“supervising attorneys as well as additional contract
attorneys.” The contract attorneys are paid a set salary to
handle all representations in particular courts.
4. The issue here is whether the Legal Aid Conflicts Panel
constitutes a “law firm” under the Rules. Rule
1.0(h) defines “law firm” to include, but not to be limited
to, “a lawyer or lawyers in a law partnership, professional
corporation, sole proprietorship or other association authorized to
practice law; or lawyers employed in a qualified legal assistance
organization, a government law office, or the legal department of a
corporation or other organization.” We do not think that
Legal Aid Conflicts Panels, as we understand their composition, share
the characteristics of these
other affiliations that prompt the Rules to treat the latter as one for
conflicts purposes.
5. The
characteristics of conventional law firms, government and corporate
legal departments, qualified legal organizations, and the like are
several. All the lawyers practicing together in such entities
are ordinarily thought to represent the client(s) that each lawyer in
the group represents. The client has an attorney-client
relationship not just with an individual lawyer but with the
partnership, office, or organization of which the individual lawyer is a
part. Each lawyer in the firm owes the same fiduciary duty to the
entity’s client(s) as any other lawyer. The sharing of a
client’s confidential information within the partnership, office,
or organization is presumed. The lawyers typically work together
in one or more common locations, in which client files are
maintained. These factors, among others, are strong indicia that
lawyers practicing together comprise a “law
firm.”
6. We understand Legal Aid Conflicts Panels to operate very
differently. In N.Y. State
643 (1993), we addressed a series of questions about Legal Aid Conflicts
Panels , including the propriety of
establishing them, the rules on insuring them, and the maintenance of
their files. In that instance, the county had a contract with the
local bar association to provide counsel for indigent clients in
conjunction with a qualified legal assistance organization. This
joint project formed a Conflicts Panel to handle representations when
the project had a conflict. We described our understanding of the
Panels this way:
In
representing eligible clients referred to them, conflicts panel lawyers
would represent their clients independently from the project and its
lawyers. Conflicts panel lawyers would not discuss client
confidences or secrets with the project’s lawyers, see DR
4-101(B), although conflicts panel lawyers would convey anonymous
statistical information about the referred matters to the project to
satisfy the project’s reporting requirements. See ABA
334 ¶ 3 (1974); EC 4-3. Neither the project nor its lawyers
would exercise any supervision or control over the legal services
provided by conflicts panel volunteers. See DR
5-107(B). The assigned conflicts panel lawyer would keep the file
pertaining to the representation in the lawyer’s own office so
long as the matter is active; when the representation is completed, the
file would be stored at the bar association headquarters.
7. Although the citations to the old Code
of Professional Responsibility are now stale, the principles remain the same in the Rules of
Professional Conduct. Conflicts Panel lawyers represent their
clients independently from the Legal Aid Society and its lawyers.
Conflicts Panel lawyers may not discuss client confidences or secrets
with the Society’s lawyers, see Rule 1.6(a), although
Conflicts Panel lawyers may convey anonymous statistical information
about the referred matters to the Society to satisfy the Society’s
reporting requirements. See ABA 334 ¶ 3 (1974); Rule
1.6(b)(6). Neither the Society nor its lawyers may exercise any
supervision or control over the legal services provided by Conflicts
Panel lawyers. See Rule 1.8(f). The assigned
Conflicts Panel lawyer should keep the file pertaining to the
representation in the lawyer’s own office so long as the matter is
active, and provide for secure storage thereafter.
8. Based on these circumstances, we
concluded in N.Y. State 643 that, “so long as conflicts panel
volunteers are independently engaged by, and independently render legal
services to, their indigent clients, there is no reason to regard
conflicts panel lawyers as being part of the same law firm either
with one another or with the project itself for conflict of
interest purposes.” (Emphasis added.)
9. The only difference between the facts
set out in N.Y. State 643 and those presented here is that the former
referred to Panel members as “volunteers” – suggesting
that they were not paid – whereas in the inquiry the Panel members
are under a contract that pays them a salary. This difference
does not matter as long as the Panel lawyers act independently of the
Society (and the county) in keeping with Rule 1.8(f). The Rule
provides that a lawyer may not accept compensation for representing a
client from one other than the client unless (a) the client consents,
(b) there is no interference with the exercise of the lawyer’s
independent professional judgment on the client’s behalf, and (c)
the lawyer maintains the confidentiality of the client’s
confidential information. This same Rule governs the day-to-day
workings of the Legal Aid Society employees, who are usually salaried
employees representing indigent clients under government contract.
We see no reason why paying the conflicts counsel should alter the
analysis that they are independent contractors who do not become a
“law firm” within the meaning of the Rules merely by serving
on the Conflicts Panel.
CONCLUSION
10. As long as members of a Legal Aid
Conflicts Panel act as independent counsel to their assigned indigents,
the Panel does not qualify as a “law firm” within the
meaning of Rule 1.0(h), and hence a conflict disabling one member of the
Panel would not be imputed to other Panel members for conflicts
purposes.
(11-11)
Related Files
Ethics Opinion 914 (Adobe PDF File)
|