Opinion No. Oag 7-78, (1978)

67 Op. Att'y Gen. 31
CourtWisconsin Attorney General Reports
DecidedFebruary 2, 1978
StatusPublished

This text of 67 Op. Att'y Gen. 31 (Opinion No. Oag 7-78, (1978)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Wisconsin Attorney General Reports primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Opinion No. Oag 7-78, (1978), 67 Op. Att'y Gen. 31 (Wis. 1978).

Opinion

DAVID D. LEEPER, District Attorney, Green County

You request my opinion on a number of questions involving your office and the office of corporation counsel in your county.

I. CORPORATION COUNSEL — PRIVATE PRACTICE

You state that the corporation counsel for Green County prosecutes all juvenile actions in the county, pursues mental commitments and protective service placements and represents the state and county in many other matters. You indicate that such corporation counsel is employed by the county on a part-time basis and has acted as defense counsel with respect to county ordinance cases and state charges, both as a privately retained attorney and by appointment by the court in cases of indigency. Where appointed to represent indigent defendants, he is paid directly by the county.

You state:

"This situation seems to raise several issues of potential conflict. First, it is the Corporation Council's [sic] obligation to advise the County Board on the approval of any costs and fees *Page 32 on indigent appointments, which include his own claims for costs and fees. The second point of possible conflict involves advocating bond reductions for criminal defendants, a situation which may always result in the County having to begin an action to collect payment against his client, or a surety of his client. A third situation of possible conflict involves in his representing a defendant who may have a valid claim or defense against action taken by the County Sheriff's Department when he is also required to represent the County regarding any liability, and advises the Sheriff's Department on legal issues. Numerous other conflicts can be imagined."

For the purposes of this opinion it is assumed that the corporation counsel is not also an assistant district attorney. If he were, the restraints in secs. 59.48, 59.49 and 256.22 (4), Stats., would be applicable to such officer.

1. Should a part-time corporation counsel, who has many duties of a public prosecutor and represents interests of the state and county, accept employment as defense counsel for those whose interests are directly adverse to either the state or county?

My answer to your general question is "no." This is not to say that every act of representation would result in an improper or illegal act. Recommendations as to restraint are based upon ethical considerations as well as hazard of violation of some criminal statute in the course of such employment. In my opinion such attorney could accept employment as defense counsel for defendants in criminal cases being tried in another county unless prohibited by ordinance or resolution creating his office and absent showing that he had a prosecutorial bias.

A corporation counsel has no inherent powers. His authority springs from sec. 59.07 (44), Stats., and other statutes referring to such officer specifically, and from the county ordinance or resolution creating such office. Whereas duties are limited to civil matters, some counties provide that such officer shall prosecute county ordinance violations. You should review the ordinance or resolution creating the office in your county to see whether it provides any restraint concerning private practice. Certain counties have provided: *Page 33

"Corporation counsel shall be permitted to engage in private practice of law but shall not represent any client in any civil matter wherein the interests of said client are adverse to the interests of county.

"***

"The corporation counsel shall be permitted to engage in the private practice of law, but shall not engage in any practice of law which will be inconsistent with the performance of his duties as corporation counsel and shall not engage in defending criminal cases."

In Karlin v. State, 47 Wis.2d 452, 177 N.W.2d 318 (1970), the court warned that there was a possible conflict of interest where an attorney who represents a subdivision of the state and also maintains a private practice, represents criminal defendants.

If, as you state, it is the duty of the corporation counsel to advise the county board on the approval of any costs and fees with respect to indigent appointments, such officer would hazard violation of sec. 946.13, Stats., which prohibits certain private interests in public contracts. This office has stated that the appointment of counsel for the indigent involves a public contract. See 62 Op. Att'y Gen. 63 and 62 Op. Att'y Gen. 118 (1973).

There probably are situations where a corporation counsel could accept employment to represent persons whose interests are adverse to the county and state if such representation is not in fact inconsistent with duties as corporation counsel which are required by statute or resolution or ordinance creating such office in Green County. In Boles v. Industrial Comm., 5 Wis.2d 382,92 N.W.2d 873 (1958), the court held that an attorney who was Lieutenant Governor was not prohibited from pursuing a claim before the Industrial Commission even though he was Acting Governor on the date of the hearing. If such employment is undertaken and an apparent conflict should arise, substitution of another attorney should be made if such officer intends to continue to serve as corporation counsel.

2. If the corporation counsel is prohibited from criminal defense representation, are the members of his firm similarly prohibited?

*Page 34

The answer is no, except in cases where the corporation counsel is also an assistant district attorney or where contracts for the defense of indigents are concerned and such officer has a discretionary duty with respect to such contracts. I construe the prohibition contained in sec. 256.22 (4), Stats., to apply to assistant district attorneys. Such section provides:

"No law partner of any district attorney shall act as a municipal justice or court commissioner in any case in which the state may be a party or defend in any court any person charged with any offense, or appear in any civil action against the state in which it is the duty of such district attorney to prosecute or appear for the state." (Emphasis added.)

A corporation counsel who was a partner or shareholder in a firm would risk violation of sec. 946.13, Stats., if he had a direct or indirect interest in the contract for representation and participated in the making of such contract or performed, or had authority to perform, an act involving discretion with respect thereto.

II. DISTRICT ATTORNEY — ASSISTANTS

Section 256.22 (3), Stats., provides:

"No practicing attorney shall have his office in the same room with any district attorney. municipal justice or court commissioner, unless he is a partner of such district attorney, municipal justice or court commissioner, in which case he shall not practice as an attorney before such municipal justice or court commissioner nor act as attorney in any case in which it is the duty of such district attorney to appear or prosecute for the state;

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Boles v. Industrial Commission
92 N.W.2d 873 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1958)
Karlin v. State
177 N.W.2d 318 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1970)
(1972)
61 Op. Att'y Gen. 443 (Wisconsin Attorney General Reports, 1972)
(1973)
62 Op. Att'y Gen. 118 (Wisconsin Attorney General Reports, 1973)
Schultz v. Milwaukee County
26 N.W.2d 260 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1947)
Feavel v. City of Appleton
291 N.W. 830 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1940)
Kraimer v. State
93 N.W. 1097 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1903)
State v. Peterson
218 N.W. 367 (Wisconsin Supreme Court, 1928)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
67 Op. Att'y Gen. 31, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/opinion-no-oag-7-78-1978-wisag-1978.