Judicial Consultations with the Attorney General
Adopted: January 17, 1992
Opinion rules that a member of the attorney general's staff may not consult ex parte with a trial court judge if it is likely that that lawyer will represent the state in the appeal of the case.
Inquiry:
May a member of the attorney general's staff engage in an ex parte communication with a trial court judge concerning the merits of a case pending before that judge in which the state, though a party, is not presently represented by the attorney general?
Opinion:
Note: For the purposes of the Rules of Professional Conduct, disqualification is generally imputed within a law firm or its functional equivalent. Here it is assumed that within the organizational structure of the attorney general's office, a "division" is the functional equivalent of a law firm.
A member of the attorney general's staff may not engage in such an ex parte communication if it is likely that that lawyer or a member of his or her division within the attorney general's office will be called upon to represent the state in the event of an appeal. Under such circumstances the member of the attorney general's staff must be treated as the alter ego of counsel for the state in the trial court, and any such communication would be tantamount to an illicit ex parte communication by the state's lawyer. Rule 7.10(b). The member of the attorney general's staff would also be disqualified for reasons of conflict of interest. The ability of such a lawyer to give the court disinterested advice would be materially limited by the fact that that lawyer or another member of that lawyer's division within the attorney general's staff would be expected to take a partisan role on behalf of the state on appeal. Rule 5.1(b).
The ethics committee has previously determined that the attorney general's office will not be treated as a monolithic law firm for the purposes of the Rules of Professional Conduct. RPC 55. Therefore, there is no ethical impediment to the attorney general offering advice to a trial court judge in any case in which the state has an interest if the state will not be represented on appeal by the consulting lawyer or a member of the consulting lawyer's division within the attorney general's office. Under such circumstances the consulting attorney, though a member of the attorney general's staff, would be considered as belonging to a "firm" which is separate and apart from the division or "firm" within the office of the attorney general for which the lawyer ultimately assigned responsibility for the appeal works.
Once a member of the attorney general's staff undertakes to consult with a trial court judge on an ex parte basis, neither that lawyer nor any other member of that lawyer's division within the attorney general's office should undertake to represent the state on appeal. This is necessary to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Canon X. Rule 9.2(a), though not dispositive, is supportive of this conclusion. In advising the court the consulting lawyer is in effect providing the services of a law clerk. Rule 9.2(a) prohibits a lawyer who has participated in a matter as a judge's law clerk from representing anyone in the same matter. The disqualification, which was designed to avoid the appearance of impropriety, is imputed to the other members of the lawyer's firm. The same concern justifies disqualification of the consulting lawyer and the other members of his or her division in the instant case.
The foregoing opinion is inapplicable to communications that are not ex parte. The trial court may avoid putting members of the attorney general's staff in the position of being precluded from participation in the case as advocates for the prosecution after having participated as advisors to the court by ensuring that all parties to the pending case are also parties to the communication.