Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion: AC-0001

A state employee serving as a council member on the Hutto City Council must decline the per-meeting salary payment in subsection 3.04(b) of the city's charter in order to comply with article XVI, subsection 40(b) of the Texas Constitution.

An order from a district court granting a motion to disqualify an attorney is not appealable under N.D.C.C. § 28-27-02(3) or the collateral order doctrine. Supervisory jurisdiction may be exercised to review an order granting a motion to disqualify an attorney because a civil litigant has a protected interest in counsel of the litigant's choice, and an appeal from a final judgment is not an adequate remedy for erroneous disqualification. When a district court finds a lawyer-client relationship between an attorney and a company based on objective manifestations, including providing legal advice to the company's officers and employees, the district court does not abuse its discretion in disqualifying the attorney under N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.7(a)(1) if the attorney represents clients on both sides of the litigation. A district court commits legal error by concluding an attorney has a lawyer-client relationship with a company solely because the attorney signed and prosecuted derivative claims brought by a shareholder on behalf of the company. An error is harmless if it does not affect the outcome of the case or a party's substantial rights.

Attorneys at law—Misconduct—Eighteen-month suspension with nine months of suspension stayed—Accepting employment when the exercise of attorney's professional judgment may be affected by attorney's personal interests—Neglect of an entrusted legal matter—Engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation—Engaging in conduct adversely reflecting on fitness to practice law.

Prof.Cond.R. 1.2, 1.7, 1.10, 1.13, 3.4, and 3.7 disqualification of opposing counsel conflict of interest loyalty to organization counsel as witness. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in granting appellee's motion to disqualify opposing counsel from representing affiliated business organizations and their trustees, employees, directors, and officers. A substantial risk of a conflict of interest exists where counsel is a named party to the proceedings served as business counsel for the codefendant businesses represented codefendant officers, directors, trustees, and employees against appellee in a prior litigation as well as the current action may testify as witnesses or who will be unable to properly defend their clients due to adverse interests.