[textbook]Traversing the Ethical Minefield Problems, Law, and Professional Responsibility by Susan R. Martyn (z-lib.org)(1) (1)

public defender when suspect asked to speak to a lawyer suspended for three months for violating Rules 4.3 and 8.3(c));
In re Howes, 940 P.2d 159 (N.M. 1997) (prosecutor who spoke to represented criminal defendant without permission
publicly reprimanded for violating Rule 4.2); In re Howes, 39 A.3d 1 (D.C. App. 2012) (same prosecutor disbarred for
improper witness payments).
19. United States v. Bowen, 799 F.3d 336 (5th Cir. 2015); United States v. Stein, 495 F. Supp. 2d 390 (S.D.N.Y.
2007).
20. See, e.g., Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993).
21. MR 1.13(b); RLGL § 97, Comment f.
22. Peter L. Strauss, Overseer, or “The Decider”? The President in Administrative Law, 75 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 696
(2007).
23. Kathleen Clark, Government Lawyers and Confidentiality Norms, 85 Wash. U. L. Rev. 1033 (2007).
24. See, e.g., Vaughn v. King, 167 F.3d 347 (7th Cir. 1999) (City of Gary Sanitary District had statutory power to
hire independent outside counsel without mayor’s signature); Salt Lake City Comm’n v. Salt Lake City Co. Atty., 985
P.2d 899, 907 (Utah 1999) (in the absence of any contradictory statutes, county attorney represents county as an
entity, not individual commissioners, who therefore have no power to hire outside counsel when they disagree with
county attorney except when county attorney “refuses to act or is incapable of acting or is unavailable for some other
reason”; disagreements about whether this exception has occurred may be settled by appeal to the Attorney General or
by seeking a declaratory judgment from a court).
25. Model Rules, Scope [18]; RLGL § 97(1) and Comment g.
26. See, e.g., 28 U.S.C. §§ 516, 519 (2012) (authorizing the Department of Justice to make and control most
litigation decisions — this power varies considerably at the state level). See Justin G. Davids, State Attorneys General and
the Client-Attorney Relationship: Establishing the Power to Sue State Officers, 38 Colum. J.L. & Soc. Probs. 365 (2005);
William P. Marshall, Break up the Presidency? Governors, State Attorneys General, and Lessons from the Divided Executive,
115 Yale L.J. 2246 (2006).
27. Clark, supra note 23.
28. MR 1.11(c).
29. In re Grand Jury Subpoena, JK-15-029, 828 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2016) (attorney-client privilege protected exgovernor’s
communications with private lawyers but not those with government lawyers who represented the state, not
the governor.)
30. Robert T. Begg, Whistleblower Law and Ethics, in Ethical Standards in the Public Sector: A Guide for Government
Lawyers, Client, and Public Officials at 136; James E. Moliterno, The Federal Government Lawyer’s Duty to Breach
Confidentiality, 14 Temp. Pol. & Civ. Rights L. Rev. 633 (2005); Roger C. Cramton, The Lawyer as Whistleblower:
Confidentiality and the Government Lawyer, 5 Geo. J. Leg. Ethics 291(1991).
31. MR 1.11(d). In re Houston County ex rel. Session, 515 S.W.3d 334 (Tex. App. 2015) (county attorney’s office
disqualified from representing state agency seeking termination of all parental rights while also representing mother in
seeking protective order against father); In re Jackson, 27 So. 3d 273 (La. 2010) (prosecutor who dismissed drunk
driving case after accepting $500 from defendant to represent him in same case disbarred).
32. E.g., In re White, 11 A.3d 1226 (D.C. App. 2011), cert. denied sub nom. White v. D.C. Bd. of Prof’l Resp., 563
U.S. 1022 (lawyer who as a government lawyer supervised investigation of a claim and subsequently represented same
private client in litigation of same claim disbarred).
33. MR 1.11(a), (e); RLGL § 133.
34. E.g., Gatewood v. State, 880 A.2d 322 (Md. 2005) (prosecutor who represented defendant on substantially
related matter not disqualified); D.C. Op. 315 (2002) (a former EPA lawyer who had no more than official
responsibility or participation in litigation substantially related to the drafting status of proposed regulations may
represent a private client in challenging the EPA’s final rules).
35. See, e.g., D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.11(a) (2017).
36. MR 1.11(b); RLGL § 124(3).
37. State ex rel. Horn v. Ray, 138 S.W.3d 729 (Mo. App. 2002).
38. 18 U.S.C. §§ 208, 209 (2012).
39. 18 U.S.C. § 154 (2012) imposes criminal liability on trustees and others for certain personal conflicts of interest.
Lawyers hired by the trustee also are subject to 11 U.S.C. § 327 (2012), which creates standards for disinterested
representation.
40. See, e.g., Practice Before the Internal Revenue Service, 31 C.F.R. § 10.25 (2012) (practice by former government
363