Skip to main content

Conflicts of Interest

Adopted: October 20, 1989

Opinion rules that an attorney hired by the Bureau of Indian Affairs to prosecute criminal charges before a Tribal Court may represent defendants in state or federal court despite the fact that the defendants have been arrested by members of the Tribal Police Force.


Attorney A has been retained by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, a branch of the federal government, to prosecute misdemeanor criminal charges brought in the Court of Indian Offenses on the Cherokee Indian Reservation. The Court is the judicial arm of the Eastern Band of Cherokee, a recognized Indian tribe still enjoying many of the attributes of its former status as a sovereign nation. Law enforcement on the Cherokee reservation is provided by the Cherokee Indian Police. The tribal police force is funded entirely by the Eastern Band.

Attorney A, as a prosecutor, has no authority to instigate or terminate prosecutions other than for failure of the witnesses to appear or where the complaint fails to allege a criminal violation. Attorney A does not advise or have any authority over the Cherokee Indian Police.

CPR 282, decided on October 15, 1980, held, in part, that an attorney who contracted with the Bureau of Indian Affairs to prosecute criminal actions in a tribal court could not simultaneously represent in federal court criminal defendants who had been arrested by members of the Indian police department on the same reservation where the attorney serves as a part-time prosecutor.

In light of CPR 282, may Attorney A represent criminal defendants in state or federal court who have have been arrested by the Cherokee Indian Police?


Yes. Attorney A is employed by the federal government and the Cherokee Indian Police are employed by the Eastern Band of the Cherokee, a distinct entity. Because Attorney A does not represent the Cherokee Indian Police, no conflict of interest arises when Attorney A cross-examines members of the tribal police pursuant to his representation of criminal defendants.

This situation should be distinguished from the case in which a town attorney who advises members of the town police department, wishes to represent criminal defendants arrested by town police. In such a case, the town attorney represents the town police department and its employees. Consequently, it would create a conflict of interest for the attorney to undertake to represent criminal defendants arrested by town police, since it might become necessary to cross-examine the arresting officer on behalf of the criminal defendant.

To the extent that this opinion is inconsistent with CPR 282, that decision is hereby overruled.

Back to top