Request for Issuance of Proposed Formal Advisory Opinion, Request No. 88-R7

Supreme Court of Georgia

Request for Issuance of Proposed Formal Advisory Opinion, Request No. 88-R7

406 S.E.2d 81, 261 Ga. 497, 1991 Ga. LEXIS 1060

Supreme Court of Georgia·Decided July 25, 1991·Published

Opinion

Per curiam.

The Formal Advisory Opinion Board of the State Bar of Georgia has submitted a proposed formal advisory opinion, suggesting, in part, the following:

It is ethically improper for an attorney to engage in simultaneous representation of the county and private parties in matters adverse to the county. A conflict of interest exists when a part-time county attorney also represents private interests adverse to the county. Moreover, this is not a situation in which it is “obvious” that “adequate” representation could be provided to both clients, and therefore, consent to the representation of the conflicting interests is not available.

We neither adopt nor reject the proposed opinion. The practice of law on behalf of public agencies is too varied and complex to warrant a per se rule of disqualification. At the same time, the potential for conflicts of interest in that practice are such that a purported waiver by a public agency may not be sufficient, in se, to eliminate questions of conflicts.

All the Justices concur. Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Alston & Bird, Kevin E. Grady, King & Spalding, Frank■ C. Jones, for applicant.

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

Per curiam.

The Formal Advisory Opinion Board of the State Bar of Georgia has submitted a proposed formal advisory opinion, suggesting, in part, the following:

It is ethically improper for an attorney to engage in simultaneous representation of the county and private parties in matters adverse to the county. A conflict of interest exists when a part-time county attorney also represents private interests adverse to the county. Moreover, this is not a situation in which it is “obvious” that “adequate” representation could be provided to both clients, and therefore, consent to the representation of the conflicting interests is not available.

We neither adopt nor reject the proposed opinion. The practice of law on behalf of public agencies is too varied and complex to warrant a per se rule of disqualification. At the same time, the potential for conflicts of interest in that practice are such that a purported waiver by a public agency may not be sufficient, in se, to eliminate questions of conflicts.

All the Justices concur. Michael J. Bowers, Attorney General, Alston & Bird, Kevin E. Grady, King & Spalding, Frank■ C. Jones, for applicant.

Request for Issuance of Proposed Formal Advisory Opinion, Request No. 88-R7, 406 S.E.2d 81, 261 Ga. 497, 1991 Ga. LEXIS 1060 (Ga. 1991).

Pincite

406 S.E.2d 81 (Request for Issuance of Proposed Formal Advisory Opinion, Request No. 88-R7) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.