Formal Opinion 59.
Prosecuting Attorney As Attorney
(1959)
For P.U.D.
You ask for an opinion of the Committee, and set forth in your letter the employment of two attorneys by the county and a P.U.D. In brief the question presented by your letter would be whether or not it is proper for an attorney to act as a prosecuting attorney of a county, and at the same time be employed as an attorney for a P.U.D. located in the same county. You ask whether this conflicts with Canon 6 of the Canons of Professional Ethics. Among other things, it is stated in this Canon:
"Within the meaning of this Canon, a lawyer represents conflicting interests when, in behalf of one client, it is his duty to contend for that which duty to another client requires him to oppose."
Of course, the county is a political subdivision of the state, and is a public body. A P.U.D. is also a public body existing under state law, and created as a public body. It thus appears that both are public institutions, and all of the officers and servants of them are public employees. The election of a prosecuting attorney makes him a public official, and his appointment by a P.U.D. would make him a public official. He at all times represents the public, and it is his duty as an attorney to at all times represent the public interest in any activity which he undertakes for either organization. We see no conflict in the two positions, any more than there is a conflict when the county attorney represents school districts and other public institutions in the state, or when the state's attorney represents various departments of the state government. It is the duty of the attorney in all these cases to represent the public, and as long as he maintains that high duty he is then not representing any conflicting interests, but only one interest, that being the public interest.
Obviously in situations which involve actual controversy (legal or factual) between the two public bodies, it would be the duty of the attorney to withdraw from one representation.
[See RPC 1.7]