Ethics Advisory Opinions

(Approved July 3, 1996)

Issue: May a lawyer choose a law-related charitable institution other than the Utah Bar Foundation to be the recipient of trust-account interest that is generated in such nominal amounts that it is impractical to pay them to individual clients?

(Approved October 28, 1994)

Issue: Do the Rules of Professional Conduct apply to the conduct of a lawyer who has been appointed by an insurance company as an "independent" appraiser of the property of an insured of the company, where the lawyer also provides legal services for the insurance company on unrelated matters?1

(Approved April 28, 1995)

This opinion addresses three related issues arising from a lawyer's employment as a life insurance agent and by a financial planning company.

Issue No. 1: May a lawyer who is also a life insurance agent, in the course of selling life insurance products, suggest the need for estate planning and then perform legal services for the customer, if requested, where the customer initially did not contact the insurance agent for legal advice?

(Approved April 28, 1994)

Issues: May a law firm accept a court appointment to represent an indigent defendant in a re-trial of a criminal case in which an investigator who had been involved in the State's investigation of the defendant and testified against the defendant at the first trial is now a full-time employee of the law firm?1

May a law firm represent other defendants in matters in which the investigator personally and substantially participated while employed with the State but in which the investigator will not be called as a State witness?

(Approved March 10, 1994)

Issue: The Office of the Utah Attorney General has requested an advisory opinion concerning whether the rules of imputed disqualification apply to that office when it is fulfilling its duty of representing all state agencies, some of which may be adverse to each other on certain issues.

(Approved January 27, 1994)

Issue: May a law firm's nonlawyer office administrator be compensated solely on the basis of a percentage of the gross income of the firm?

Opinion: Under Rule of Professional Conduct 5.4(a)(3), a lawyer or law firm may include nonlawyer employees in a compensation or retirement plan, which may be based upon a percentage of the net or gross income of the firm, so long as compensation is not tied to receipt of particular fees. The nonlawyer's employment, however, must still comport with Rule 5.4(d), which prevents the nonlawyer from owning an interest in or controlling the activities of a law practice.

(Approved January 27, 1994)

Issue: May a currently practicing sole practitioner who formerly had associates or junior partners continue to use the firm name that includes the sole practitioner's name followed by "& Associates"?

Opinion: A lawyer may not use "& Associates" as part of a firm name where no attorney associates are currently employed by that firm.

(Approved July 29, 1993)

Issue:Can an advance payment made by a client ever be characterized as a "fixed fee" or "nonrefundable retainer", which would be earned by the attorney when received and therefore not deposited into a trust account?

(Approved September 23, 1993)

Issue: In a contingent-fee case, what are the ethical considerations for a judgment-creditor's attorney where the judgment-debtor agrees to name the judgment-creditor as the beneficiary of an insurance policy on the life of the judgment-debtor in order to satisfy the judgment?

(Approved August 26, 1993)

Issues: May an attorney who is leaving a law firm take, either to another law firm or to solo practice, the files and clients generated while the attorney was an employee or member of the law firm?

What duties does the departing attorney owe the law firm with respect to fees paid to the attorney by these clients for services performed subsequent to the attorney's departure from the firm?

(Approved May 20, 1993)

Issue: May a Utah lawyer include on his letterhead the name of a non-lawyer employee with an indication that he is a certified public accountant (CPA)?

Opinion: An employee non-lawyer, such as a CPA, may be listed on the letterhead of a solo practitioner, partnership or firm so long as the designation is not false or misleading and contains a clear indication of the non-lawyer's status.1

(Approved March 11, 1993)

Issues: The U.S. Supreme Court found that, in Nevada, a portion of Rule 3.6 of the Rules of Professional Conduct concerning trial publicity is void for vagueness. Does this result have any effect on the viability of Utah's Rule of Professional Conduct 4.4, which proscribes certain lawyer communications and actions with respect to third persons?

(Approved April 28, 1994)

Issues: May a lawyer make in-person solicitations of persons to join the lawyer in forming a citizens' group that will be the nominal plaintiff in litigation, if the members of the citizens' group will be requested to contribute funds for the payment of legal fees and the lawyer intends to serve as legal counsel for the citizens' group in the litigation?

(Approved January 27, 1994)

Issue: Under what circumstances may a city attorney represent criminal defendants?

Opinion: A city attorney with prosecutorial functions may not represent a criminal defense client in any jurisdiction. A city attorney with no prosecutorial functions, who has been appointed as city attorney pursuant to statute, may not represent a criminal defense client in that city, but may represent a criminal defense client in other jurisdictions, provided that Rule 1.7(a) of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct is satisfied. An attorney with no prosecutorial functions, who is retained by a city on a contract or retainer basis, may represent a criminal defense client in any jurisdiction, provided that Rule 1.7(a) is satisfied. An attorney who is a partner or associate of a city attorney may not represent a criminal defense client in any situation where the city attorney is so prohibited.

(Approved January 27, 1994)

Issue: Under what circumstances may a city attorney represent criminal defendants?

Opinion: A city attorney with prosecutorial functions may not represent a criminal defense client in any jurisdiction. A city attorney with no prosecutorial functions, who has been appointed as city attorney pursuant to statute, may not represent a criminal defense client in that city, but may represent a criminal defense client in other jurisdictions, provided that Rule 1.7(a) of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct is satisfied. An attorney with no prosecutorial functions, who is retained by a city on a contract or retainer basis, may represent a criminal defense client in any jurisdiction, provided that Rule 1.7(a) is satisfied. An attorney who is a partner or associate of a city attorney may not represent a criminal defense client in any situation where the city attorney is so prohibited.

(Approved October 28, 1994)

Issue: May an elected county attorney share and rent office space to another attorney who may represent interests adverse to the county?

Opinion: The Utah Rules of Professional Conduct do not prohibit one attorney from renting office space to another, provided that the arrangement does not create a conflict of interest prohibited by the Rules, does not jeopardize confidential client information, does not mislead clients about the relationship between the attorneys, and is otherwise consistent with the Rules.

(Approved August 26, 1993)

Issue: May a lawyer pay another lawyer a fee for referring a case?

Opinion: A lawyer may not pay referral fees to another lawyer, unless the referral arrangement meets the standards of Rule 1.5(e) for dividing fees and is otherwise consistent with the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct.

(Approved August 20, 1992)

Issue: 1 Is Utah Rule of Professional Conduct 1.13(a) intended to eliminate the historic distinction (previously stated in DR-9-102(a)) between payments advanced by a client for professional legal fees and payments advanced by a client for costs?

(Approved June 25, 1992)

Issue: Under what circumstances may an attorney represent both parties in a divorce?

Opinion: An attorney may not concurrently represent both parties in a divorce under any circumstances.

(Approved July 29, 1994)

I. Introduction

On May 20, 1993, the Board of Bar Commissioners of the Utah State Bar approved Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee No. 115, which found that Rule 4.2 of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct does not prohibit a lawyer representing a private party from directly contacting a government official about a matter involving the attorney's client, even though the government agency was known to be represented by counsel. Subsequent to the approval of the opinion, the Office of Attorney General of Utah, the Statewide Association of Public Attorneys of Utah, and an individual from the Office of Attorney General, Richard L. King (collectively, "Petitioners") filed petitions for reconsideration of the opinion.

(Approved May 20, 1993)

Issue: Under what circumstances may a lawyer who represents a private party contact the employees of a government agency if the private party is involved in litigation against the agency?

(Approved February 20, 1992)

Issue: Is a one-third contingency fee charged by an attorney unreasonable or excessive if the recovery includes personal injury protection ("PIP" or "no fault") payments from the client's insurer?

(Approved March 14, 1991)

Issue: May a lawyer, in representing individual members of an Indian tribe, communicate with the Tribal Council or with tribal officers in their official capacity concerning federal legislation that the lawyer has proposed on behalf of his clients, when the communication is made without the consent of the lawyer who represents the tribe and has proposed competing federal legislation on the same matters?

(Approved July 29, 1993)

Issue: Utah Ethics Advisory Opinion No. 45, issued in 1978, holds that an attorney may not represent a collection company in lawsuits to collect on assigned accounts if he owns stock in or has an interest in the company. Is Opinion No. 45 still valid in light of the relaxation of attorney advertising and solicitation restrictions since 1978?

Opinion: The conclusion of Opinion No. 45 is reversed. Subject to any legal constraints imposed by Utah Code Ann. § 78-51-27(1), it is not per se unethical for an attorney who has a financial interest in a collection agency to represent the agency in lawsuits to collect on assigned accounts.

(Approved February 25, 1993)

Issue: May an attorney give a "second opinion" on a legal matter, when approached by a non-client who is represented by counsel?

Opinion: Rule 4.2 of the Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits a lawyer, "[i]n representing a client," from "communicat[ing] about the subject of the representation with a party the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter." A lawyer does not violate the letter or purposes of this rule by rendering a second opinion on a legal matter, when the lawyer is not "representing a client" on the same subject. However, the lawyer should make every effort neither to impair the first attorney-client relationship nor to use the consultation as a means of soliciting the represented party.

(Approved December 14, 1990)

Issue: May a Utah lawyer who is also a certified public accountant (CPA) include a CPA designation on his professional law-office letterhead?1

appointment and the court has denied the motion?

(Approved February 15, 1992)

Issue: Is a lawyer subject to disciplinary action for pursuing a matter in which he has a conflict of interest or which may otherwise be a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct when the lawyer has sought to be excused from the court appointment and the court has denied the motion?

(Effective Date July 27, 1990)

Issue: Is it ethically proper for a collection agency to retain and pay a lawyer a flat monthly fee to handle all of its collection litigation while seeking and recovering attorneys' fees from the debtor based upon higher market rates?1

(Approved October 27, 1989)

Issue: Is an attorney who serves as a part-time county attorney or part-time deputy county attorney ethically barred from appearing as counsel on behalf of a defendant in a civil action brought by the State of Utah to collect delinquent child support payments when the State is represented by the Attorney General's Office in the same action?

(Approved October 27, 1989)

Issue: Is an attorney's refusal to pay for services rendered by a third party at the attorney's request contrary to the attorney's obligation to act in an ethical manner, and does it warrant disciplinary action.

(Approved October 27, 1989)

Issue: May a lawyer disclose a client's threats to commit suicide to another who might help prevent it, even though the client's communication is privileged and confidential and otherwise falls within the scope of the attorney-client relationship?

Effective Date May 17, 1989)

Issue: Is it ethically proper for an attorney to retain a client's file and other papers and documents belonging to the client, because the client has refused to pay the attorney's fees?

Approved: May 1987
[Affirmed by Opinion No. 96-04]

Note: The following original Opinion No. 90 was reversed by the Board of Bar Commissioners on Sept. 23, 1988. This reversal was affirmed by Opinion No. 96-04.

Approved: February 20, 1987
[Overruled in part by Opinion No. 98-02]

SUMMARY:

An attorney may not ethically be employed both as a County Attorney and as a City Attorney for a municipality within the same county boundaries. However, an attorney may ethically perform the prosecutorial function for both a county and a municipality within the same county boundaries.

Approved: February 20, 1987

Issue:

Is an attorney who represents a complainant in a disciplinary proceeding before the Ethics and Discipline Committee of the Utah State Bar under an ethical obligation of confidentiality with respect to the allegations contained in the complaint and the contents of the Notice of Disposition issued in the matter.

Approved: October 2, 1987

A number of questions have arisen concerning a lawyer's responsibility toward an absent client. These questions generally arise when the attorney accepts employment and embarks upon the performance of the legal service the client has requested, but is subsequently unable to locate the client to inform him of matters upon which he needs his consent and direction. What is the lawyer to do when (A) he is unable to obtain the absent client's approval of a settlement offer, or (B) to continue the pending litigation of the absent client's claim. Such a situation might arise, for example, where the client has moved from the community and possibly have abandoned his claim without informing his attorney. This is not the only situation that might give rise to absent-client problems. The absent-client problem involves a tension between the lawyer's obligation to diligently represent the client and achieve desired results, and the lawyer's obligation to communicate with the client and allow the client to direct the objectives of the representation.

Approved: January 20, 1986

Facts: Attorney (A) was employed as the (City Y) City Attorney for approximately four years. During the last months of A's tenure, A drafted a new contract for solid waste collection in (City Y). Client (C) was awarded the contract and asked A to include two additional provisions. One provision allowed C increased compensation if the price of fuel rose above a specified level. A drafted those provisions and C operated under the contract from approximately June, 1979 to December, 1979.

Approved: April 11, 1985.

Facts: Corporation X, a non-profit organization, is funded by the Federal Government to provide legal services to low-income people. The corporation's Board of Directors consists of lawyers and non-lawyers. The corporation employs licensed attorneys to perform legal services.

Approved: February 21, 1986

Facts: Several attorneys have requested an opinion regarding the propriety of mailing a solicitation letter to specific groups of potential clients. The proposed letters are addressed to groups such as financial institutions, mortgage lenders, or general contractors within a specific city or county.

Approved: February 13, 1981

Summary: An attorney may give advice to a litigant who is proceeding prose and may prepare or assist in the preparation of pleadings. But when the attorney gives any additional advice or assistance, he has an obligation to notify the court and opposing counsel of his representation.

Approved: February 11, 1980
[Modified or overruled by Opinion No. 126]

Summary: A municipal prosecutor may not represent criminal defendants in the same circuit court district, even if the defense is conducted in different divisions of that court.

Approved: November 16, 1979

Summary: An attorney employed by an insurance company to represent both insurer and insured in a matter must fully disclose to both of all relevant circumstances and potential conflicts of interest and after obtaining consent of both may proceed and negotiate with the company on behalf of the insured for compromise and settlements.

Approved: November 16, 1979

Summary: An attorney may issue a notice of a dishonored check which includes statutorily required reference to criminal sanctions.

Approved: November l6, 1979

Summary: An attorney referral program for the Utah Education Association is permissible under certain circumstances.

Approved: November 16, 1979

Summary: An attorney may represent the husband and guardians of the wife even though he formerly represented the husband in an incompleted divorce action if both parties consent after full disclosure and if the attorney withdraws from the divorce proceedings.

Approved: November 16, 1979

Summary: A private attorney may not be appointed as special counsel by the attorney general for purposes of enforcing the Take-Over Disclosure Act when he or his law firm regularly acts as legal counsel for the offeree company involved in the take-over effort.

Approved: September 21, 1979

Summary: An announcement of availability of legal services to lawyers must be dignified and must avoid "representations of special competence or experience."

Approved: September 21, 1979

Summary: An attorney may not purchase estate assets when he is acting as legal counsel for the executor or other involved person, except under most unusual circumstances.

Approved: September 21, 1979

Summary: An attorney may act as both executor and attorney for the executor in probate proceedings.

Approved: September 21, 1979

Summary: An attorney is permitted to place trust funds in an interest bearing account so long as he doesn't retain the interest proceeds.

Approved: September 21, 1979

Summary: When the attorney general's office is involved in representation of a state judge, members of the attorney general's staff should avoid appearances before that judge, or if such appearances cannot be avoided, disclosure of the concurrent legal representation of the judge should be made to the court and opposing counsel.

Approved: April 12, 1979

Summary: An attorney may not reveal confidences and secrets gained in the course of professional employment when the attorney is subpoenaed to appear and testify regarding criminal charges against a client unless the information gained clearly indicates fraud.

Approved: April 12, 1979

Summary: An attorney may not reveal confidences and secrets gained in the course of professional employment when the attorney is subpoenaed to appear and testify regarding criminal charges against a client unless the information gained clearly indicates fraud.

Approved: April 12, 1979

Summary: A law firm may advise only regular clients of a seminar it offers on a particular subject.

Approved: April 12, 1979

Summary: An attorney may announce his availability to do legal research for other attorneys in the bar newsletter.

Approved: April 12, 1979

Summary: A county attorney may not represent the same plaintiff against the same defendant in both a civil and a criminal matter.

Approved: April 12, 1979

Summary: A lawyer may not contact medical doctors with the intent of obtaining clients in a class action suit when the prospective clients are patients of the contacted doctors.

Approved: April 12, 1979

Summary: An attorney may indicate on his/her letterhead the possession of a J.D. and/or L.L.M. degree.

Approved: April 12, 1979

Summary: An attorney may not ethically represent some stockholders in a derivative action against a corporation when he previously acted as corporate counsel.

Approved: April 12, 1979

Summary: An attorney may withdraw as counsel when his client disregards a fee agreement or refuses to discuss the fee agreement and has filed a bankruptcy petition seeking to discharge accrued fees.

Approved: April 12, 1979
[Overruled by Opinion 98-15]

Summary: It is improper for an attorney to identify himself as an attorney in a letter to the editor.

Facts: The Ethics Committee has been asked to render a decision on whether or not it is proper for an attorney to write a letter to the editor of a local newspaper and identify himself as an attorney: (1) in a letter relating to law; or (2) in a non-legal letter.

Approved: April 12, 1979

Summary: An attorney may provide limited legal services to persons wishing to handle their own divorces.

Approved: April 12, 1979

Summary: An attorney may not ethically be employed as both a county attorney and a part-time city attorney for a municipality within the same county boundaries.

Approved: December 8, 1978

Summary: An attorney who is also a city councilman may not ethically represent those charged with crimes in that city's courts or in cases where city-employed law enforcement officers are prosecution witnesses.

Approved: August 25, 1978
[Overruled by Opinion 97-05]

Summary: Attorneys may not join barter exchanges.

Approved: August 25, 1978

Summary: When a client has disappeared and cannot be located, an attorney may withdraw as counsel in ongoing litigation and is not obligated to pursue an appeal.

Approved: July 28, 1978

Summary: A Salt Lake County municipal attorney may not represent criminal defendants in other jurisdictions.

Approved: July 28, 1978

Summary: An attorney must proceed with utmost care in providing limited legal services to inmates. The attorney must fully inform the inmate of the exact nature of the representation and must warn the State of Utah and its officials that they have no influence over the nature of the advice.

Approved: July 28, 1978

Summary: An attorney candidate for political office may not use endorsement statements of a judge. But an attorney may use an endorsement of a former client if it is used for the sole purpose of garnering votes and if the endorsements are done in a dignified manner.

Approved: July 28, 1978

Summary: An attorney may own stock in or have an interest in a collection company but if he has an interest he may not represent the company in law suits to collect on assigned accounts.

Approved: March 10, 1978

Summary: Attorneys may not enter into a settlement agreement without client authorization.

Approved: March 10, 1978
[Overruled by Opinion No. 97-01]

Summary: Clients' unused cost funds that are held by the Utah Legal Services, Inc. and have not been claimed for a reasonable period of time may be donated to the legal services program provided reasonable efforts have been made to contact the clients.

Approved: January 12, 1978

Summary: An attorney may not represent a plaintiff in a malpractice suit against a doctor and simultaneously represent that doctor in a Chapter XI suit. The dual representation creates so many conflicts that even if all parties consent after full disclosure suit representation may be improper.

Approved: December 22, 1977
[Modified or overruled by Opinion No. 126]

Summary: A part time city attorney may not represent defendants charged with violations of city ordinances but he may represent private clients against non-city clients.

Approved: December 22, 1977

Summary: An attorney may not represent a client who seeks to sue a corporation which formerly employed the attorney as general counsel.

Approved: December 12, 1977

Summary: A Legal Aid Society can collect awarded attorney's fees for clients from clients opponents if the fees become collectible, provided the fees are paid to the society and not to the individual attorney.

Approved: August 29, 1977

Summary: It is improper to use the designation "Salt Lake Legal Clinic" for a law office.

Approved: May 3, 1977

Summary: An attorney may not represent a client before a county commission or defend a client in an alleged misdemeanor violation of county ordinance when the attorney's partner is a deputy county attorney.

Approved: August 29, 1977

Summary: A lawyer may not distribute flyers with information about his fees, practices and philosophy in probate matters.

Approved: January 27, 1977

Summary: If one lawyer in an office cannot act as defense counsel in a particular court because of a position as city or county attorney, other lawyers in that office are also disqualified.

Approved: December 30, 1976

Summary: It is improper for lawyers to hold themselves out as partners where no partnership relationship exists.

Approved: December 30, 1976

Summary: A business card describing an attorney as "General Counsel" or "Counsel" is proper.

Approved: December 10, 1076

Summary: An attorney may not allow his name to be placed on a list circulated to members of a nonprofit association organized for the purpose of providing legal services and may not associate with California firms for that purpose.

Approved: December 10, 1976

Summary: An attorney retained as corporate counsel may not reveal client confidences before a grand jury.

Approved: October 14, 1976

Summary: A practicing attorney who is also the president of a title company must comply with the Code of Professional Responsibility in both occupations. F328 is adopted.

Approved: October 24, 1976

Summary: An attorney may not represent a client in a suit against a former client when the suit involves the same subject matter.

Approved: October 24, 1976

Summary: A lawyer or law firm should withdraw as counsel in a case in which the lawyer or a member of the law firm may be called as a witness, unless there are exceptional circumstances, requiring representation by a particular lawyer or law firm.

Approved: August 16, 1976

Summary: A lawyer may sue a client who pays with a postdated check which is later dishonored.

Approved: May 11, 1976

Summary: A pro-tem judge may not act as criminal defense counsel in the same court.

Approved: May 11, 1976
[Modified or overruled by Opinion No. 126]

Summary: It is improper for members of a law firm to represent criminal defendants in municipal court where the law firm acts as a special city attorney.

Approved: March 15, 1976

Summary: A criminal-felony deputy attorney may serve as a protem judge in misdemeanor matters in a different county.

Approved August 22, 1975

Summary: An attorney's announcement card may include past positions of an attorney but not the nature of his employment.

Comments: But see In re Utah State Bar Petition, 647 P.2d 991 (1982) which may have modified this opinion.

Approved: June 18, 1975

Summary: It is improper for a county attorney or his associates to represent criminal defendants.

Comments: See Utah Opinions 6 and 10.

Facts: Your inquiry is founded upon the following statement of the problem as set forth in your letter:

Approved: February 19, 1975

Summary: Credit cards may be used to finance attorney's fees under certain circumstances.

Approved: April 12, 1974

Summary: An attorney who is a justice of the peace may appear in city court, district court, juvenile court and federal court matters, absent any conflict of interest, but should not appear in criminal matters and must exercise great caution and circumspection to avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

Approved: April 12, 1974

Summary: Except for consent after full disclosure by both parties, an attorney may not represent a client in a law suit brought by another of the attorney's clients, even though the second client has not sought the attorney's advice in the instant matter. If the client bringing the action agrees to dismissal of the claim of the other client without a prior appearance by the attorney, the attorney can then represent the second client in a cross-complaint brought by the co-defendant.

Approved: February 23, 1974

Summary: An attorney may not send a copy of a letter, which was sent to opposing counsel, to the client of opposing counsel in regard to the need for answers to interrogatories.

Approved: November 28, 1973

Summary: A practicing attorney who also engages in a real estate business is held to the ethical standards of a lawyer in both occupations.

Comments: See Utah Opinions 5 and 30.

Approved: October 12, 1973

Summary: A county attorney may not represent persons accused of crimes in other states but may make available to the attorney retained in the other state information developed in the private civil case which the county attorney worked on.

Approved: October 12, 1973

Summary: A county attorney may not accept employment in a civil matter where he had previously determined as county attorney that there was not sufficient cause to bring criminal charges in the same matter.

Approved: October 12, 1973

Summary: Legal research services offered through a Utah corporation would constitute unauthorized practice of law. However, research services might be available through lawyers of a professional corporation.

Approved: August 15, 1973

Summary: It is improper for a law firm to schedule a party for clients honoring significant anniversary dates.

Approved: August 15, 1973

[Overruled by Opinion No. 97-05]

Summary: Attorneys may not be members of barter type exchanges in which they barter their services for other professional services.

Approved: February 3, 1973

Summary: Where an actual conflict of interest exists between two defendants charged with the same crime, the Utah Legal Defenders' office may not represent both through assignment of different counsel.

Summary: Municipal attorneys in sparsely populated areas of Utah may represent criminal defendants in other municipalities.

Approved: June 7, 1972

Summary: A special assistant attorney general may represent a client in a civil matter before a municipality.

Approved: April 21, 1972

Summary: An attorney may refer a delinquent account to a collection agency if justified under EC 2-23.

Approved: March 31, 1972

Summary: It is improper for a deputy attorney whose position involves work in tax matters to represent private clients in federal tax matters.

Approved: January 13, 1972

[Modified or overruled by Opinion No. 126]

Summary: A city attorney whose position includes prosecutions may not defend those charged with misdemeanors and criminal offenses in other jurisdictions unless he is assigned to do so by the court.

Approved: January 13, 1972

Summary: A practicing attorney who sells life insurance faces solicitation and conflict of interest problems and is held to the ethical standards of an attorney in both professions.

Approved: December 1971

Summary: It is improper for the partner of a deputy district attorney to defend any client in a criminal case which the deputy district attorney may not handle himself.

Approved: 1971

Summary: A special assistant attorney general should not represent clients in civil matters against the state unless both parties consent after full disclosure.

Approved: October 23, 1970

Summary: An attorney who primarily practices criminal law may accept employment seeking to recover stolen property under certain circumstances.

Approved: February 1, 1965

Summary: Deputy county attorneys should not be assigned to represent indigent defendants in other counties.