79-4.
Case Date | May 01, 1980 |
Court | Alaska |
Alaska Ethics Opinion
1980.
79-4.
Ethics Opinion No. 79-4Whether it is Proper for the ALSC
Board of Directors to Review Client Eligibility Determinations and Whether a
Conflict of Interest Exists Where a Board Member and His Firm Re p resents an
Opponent of an ALSC Client.Summary
The Ethics Committee has been asked, 1) whether it is proper for
the Alaska Legal Services Corporation (ALSC) Board of Directors to review
client eligibility determinations for legal services clients, and 2) does a
conflict of interest exist where a Board member or his firm represents an
opponent of an ALSC client in the same litigation.
It is our conclusion that the review of client eligibility
information by the ALSC board is not prohibited by any ethical principle unless
the information is protected by the attorney- client privilege. Whether the
information is protected by the attorney-client privilege depends on the facts
in each particular case. As a general proposition, absence unusual factual
circumstances, it would not appear that the attorney-client privilege
ordinarily applies.
We also conclude that members of the ALSC Board of Directors and
members of their firms can represent parties adverse to clients represented by
ALSC staff lawyers provided requisite consideration is given to the conflict of
interest provisions of the Model Code of Professional Responsibility to assure
independent professional advice and judgment to each client.
Issue No. 1
The first issue presented for consideration is whether it is
proper for the Alaska Legal Services Corporation Board of Directors to review
client eligibility determinations for legal services clients.
Outside of the legal services context, eligibility for publicly
funded programs is subject to internal review by the program administration and
directors. This is true even in a program where eligibility depends upon income
(or available assets) being below a certain threshold level. In most cases, the
fact that an individual is represented by Alaska Legal Services is a matter of
public knowledge and record. The fact of representation carries the implication
that the client is eligible for such representation. In other words, the basic
fact of eligibility is not ordinarily confidential.
There is nevertheless some authority for the proposition that
specific information relating to client eligibility for representation by ALSC
may be protected by the attorney-client privilege. The ALSC Board of Directors
is made up of both lawyers and lay persons. The attorney-client relationship
between a staff attorney and his client extends to other, attorneys on the
staff, but it does not extend to attorney or non-attorney members of the
organization's governing body. See, ABA Formal Opinion 324,
ABA Informal Opinion 1208, and California Bar Association Opinion 358. In an
Informal Opinion, the California Bar Association found that client financial
data, including documents related to income and assets, may not be disclosed to
the board of directors of a legal aid foundation by a staff attorney (Informal
Opinion 358). That opinion is based in part on a California Supreme Court
decision that financial eligibility information given by a client to a public
defender agency is protected by the attorney-client privilege. People
v. Canfield, 10 Cal.3rd 699, 527 P.2d 633 (1974). It should be noted
however, that in some districts the Alaska Court System, in determining
eligibility for representation in criminal cases by the public defendant,
examines potential clients on the question of eligibility in open court. Under
such a procedure all the factual details are made available not only to the
court and to the agency that may provide legal services, but also to any member
of the general public who wishes to listen in. While we do not express approval
for this procedure, its employment by the court system in Alaska would seem to
indicate that there is no present authority for the proposition that
eligibility information is inherently privileged. (see endnote 1)
Rule 503 of the Alaska Rules of Evidence provides that the
lawyer-client privilege extends to communications "not intended to be disclosed
to third persons other than those...
To continue reading
Request your trial