Ethics Advisory Opinion 15-05

Utah State Bar

Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee
Opinion Number 15-05
Issued September 30, 2015


  1. May an attorney pay an internet service company a nominal fee to bid on potential legal work? May an attorney seek clients through an internet business that provides the attorney with limited client information in order to permit the attorney to bid to provide the needed legal services?


  1. Payment of a nominal fee to the internet forum service provider described herein, thereby enabling the attorney to offer a bid  for legal services to a potential client, does not violate: (a) Rule 7.1, Communications concerning a Lawyer’s Services; (b) Rule 7.2, Advertising, or (c) Rule 7.3, Direct Contact with Prospective Clients.  Using such an internet business to seek new clients does not violate Rule 1.18 or other rules of professional conduct provided the attorney does not undertake representation for which he has a conflict of interest and the attorney protects the confidentiality of the information received from the prospective client.


  1. A new internet service provider website has emerged for Utah business market consumers, including potential clients who need and/or seek legal services.  The website is an internet forum designed to help all consumers, obtain bids or quotes on various professional services, including legal services, in the geographic area where the potential consumer or client lives or where the potential services are needed.  Professionals, including attorneys, may create a profile on the service website (free of charge both to the consumer and to the professional). These professionals may respond in writing to consumer requests for bids or quotes on proposed services.  Consumers, including potential legal clients, are allowed to review the professionals/potential attorneys’ submissions, such as attorney biographies, other client analysis of such attorney services, and attorney case summaries.  The consumer/potential client may then leave comments or recommendations on the website for separate consumer access.
  2. This internet forum service is akin to the popular Angie’s List website,, which also allows consumers to find professional services the consumer either wants or requires in an identified geographic area.  Yet a critical difference between Angie’s List and the internet forum service provider described in this Opinion is that the Angie’s List service charges consumers to become Angie’s List “members” in order to take advantage of Angie’s List services.   In contrast, the internet service described in this Opinion is available cost-free to consumers.  Instead, the internet service charges the professionals, including attorneys, for this internet service when the professionals submit bids to the consumer with respect to the consumer’s requested service.  In order for an attorney to submit a bid to the potential client for requested legal services, the attorney must pay a nominal fee of approximately $3.00 – $5.00 per bid to the internet service provider.  The attorney must pay this fee for each bid, regardless of whether the bid actually results in any work for the consumer/client.
  3. Any Utah lawyer can register on the internet forum service provider described herein and submit a resume and/or listing of attorney qualifications for designated legal services. The internet service confirms that the Utah State Bar has in fact licensed the bidding attorney.  The attorney, who has registered with the internet service, selects a category of requests he/she would like to receive, such as tax litigation, contract law, criminal law, etc.  The attorney also sets a travel geographic area to specify the maximum distance the professional would limit his/her services.
  4. (more…)

Ethics Advisory Opinion 15-01

Utah State Bar
Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee
Opinion Number 15-01
Issued January 13, 2015


  1. The Utah Board of Pardons and Parole (the “Board”) and a private attorney have jointly requested the Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee issue an opinion on what constitutes a “matter” as discussed in Utah Rules of Professional Conduct 1.11(a)(2) and 1.12(a).  Specifically, in light of the nature of Board proceedings, do all decisions involving an individual offender constitute the same “matter” for purposes of Rule 1.11(a)(2) and 1.12(a)?  What are the limitations on a former member of the Board or hearing officer in representing offenders before the Board?


    1. A former member of the Board (or hearing officer) may not represent an offender before the Board without the informed written consent of the Board where the former Board member (or hearing officer) personally and substantially participated in prior Board proceedings involving the same offender.  However, the specific facts and circumstances of the subsequent representation, including, without limitation, the lapse of time between the two Board proceedings and nature of the offenses involved, may often provide a basis for the Board to waive any potential conflict in such a situation.


    3.         The Board is an administrative agency of the Executive Department created by the Utah Constitution.  Utah Const. Art 7, § 12.  The Board is charged with determining “when and under what conditions, subject to this chapter and other laws of the state, persons committed to serve sentences in Class A misdemeanor cases at penal or correctional facilities which are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Corrections, and all felony cases except treason or impeachment or as otherwise limited by law, may be released upon parole, pardoned, ordered to pay restitution, or have their fines, forfeitures, or restitution remitted, or their sentences commuted or terminated.”  Utah Code Ann. § 77-27-5(1)(a).  In addition to the constitutional and statutory bases for its authority, the Board is also governed by its own rules under the Utah Administrative Code, Section R671, et seq.  Currently, the Board is made up of a five-member panel who, by majority vote, make the aforementioned decisions.  Additionally, the Board employs a number of hearing officers who assist the Board by conducting hearings and writing recommendations utilized in the Board’s decision-making process.  When hearing officers or Board members write recommendations, those recommendations are not available to individuals outside of the Board and its employees, including the offender.[2]  The recommendations are classified as “protected” or as “non records,” pursuant to GRAMA.  Additionally, the votes of individual members attached to these recommendations are not released to the offender or others. Board members and employees may not remove material from the files or retain photocopies of the information.

    4.         When an offender is first convicted of a Class A misdemeanor or felony and committed to the custody of the Department of Corrections, the Board opens a file on that offender.  That file contains all of the records the Board possesses on the offender, including the offender’s criminal history, supervision history, and records pertaining to that offender provided by the Department of Corrections.  The Board opens only one file on each offender.  If an offender commits new offenses, is released on parole, etc., this additional information is added to the existing file.  When the Board makes a decision regarding an offender, it considers the entire file. For example, the Board will consider previous convictions, even those that have terminated, and previous paroles in making a current decision regarding an offender.  Of particular import, the Board member and/or hearing officer participating in a particular decision in an offender’s case has access to the confidential intra-Board memoranda containing recommendations and individual votes of each member regarding previous decisions.  Further, the Board and hearing officers are able to access any other confidential information contained in the file, including information from confidential informants, etc.  As necessary, Board members or hearing officers are occasionally recused from participating in any part of the decision-making process associated with a particular offender’s case.  Once recused, the Board member or hearing officer is prohibited from accessing the offender’s file and participating in any future decisions regarding the offender.

    Ethics Advisory Opinion No. 06-01

    June 2, 2006
    May members of the County Attorney’s Office provide pro bono legal assistance to victims of domestic violence in seeking civil protective orders?
    If so, is it thereafter permissible for the County Attorney’s Office to prosecute the subsequent violation of the protective order?

    Would it be permissible for the County Attorney’s Office to provide such legal assistance to victims of domestic violence as a governmental service and thereafter prosecute subsequent violations of the protective order if the civil division of the office assisted in the civil protective order and the criminal division in any subsequent prosecution?
    Opinion: While statute, ordinance or employment contract may prohibit a government lawyer from representing individuals on a pro bono basis, the only ethical prohibition would arise from conflicts of interest provisions. Conflicts of interest rules would not prohibit the initial private representation but would prohibit the individual government lawyer from thereafter having any involvement in the prosecution of the abuser. It is conceivable that the pro bono work of one government lawyer in a large office with different divisions would have no impact upon another government lawyer in a different division handling a related matter for the government. However, it would be improper for the second lawyer to undertake to represent the governmental entity if the pro bono work undertaken by the first lawyer could create a material limitation for that second lawyer. Finally, two separate divisions of a governmental office can be established to undertake potentially conflicting work, provided that attorneys in one unit do not in any way “participate” in the work of the other unit (best achieved through “screening”) and provided that any representation of an individual or non-governmental entity fully complies with Rule 1.8(f).
    Facts: The County Attorney’s Office seeks to help victims of domestic violence obtain protective orders in civil cohabitant abuse actions, since such individuals may be deterred from obtaining this protection without legal representation. The County Attorney seeks to provide full representation, including appearing in court on behalf of the victim, not merely to provide information sufficient to permit the victim to proceed pro se. 1 The County Attorney’s Office, however, does not wish to provide this assistance at the expense of being able to prosecute the abuser, either for the initial incident or for future incidents, including incidents that are violations of the order. The County Attorney’s Office asks about the possibility of one attorney providing this representation “pro bono” and about the possibility of a division of the Office providing this representation as part of its regular public service. Both scenarios are addressed here.
    Authority: The questions must be answered in light of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct (2005) and EAOC Opinions:
    Rule 1.7 regarding concurrent conflicts of interest (actual and potential) of the attorney
    Rule 1.9 regarding successive conflicts of interest of the individual attorney
    Rule 1.11 regarding conflicts of interest for government lawyers
    Opinion No. 98-01
    Opinion No. 01-06A
    Applicable Rules
    Rule 1.7 provides in relevant part:
    . . . A lawyer shall not represent a client if . . . There is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client or . . . by a personal interest of the lawyer. (more…)

    Ethics Advisory Opinion No. 99-05

    Approved July 30, 1999
    What are the ethical implications of the Office of the Attorney General’s proposed investigation to determine whether any Utah criminal laws were violated by the Salt Lake City Bid Committee for the Olympic Winter Games in view of the Attorney General’s prior association with the Bid Committee?

    Opinion: The Utah Rules of Professional Conduct apply to the Attorney General and to each lawyer in the Office of the Attorney General on an individual basis. An evaluation of the ethical issues raised by the investigation invites inquiry under Rule 1.11(c) and Rule 1.7(b). Based on our review of the limited facts before us, we believe that neither the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct, generally, nor Rules 1.11(c) and 1.7(b), specifically, prohibit the Investigation per se. Because the analysis mandated by Rule 1.7(b) is fact- and context- specific, however, each lawyer responsible for or participating in the Investigation has an affirmative obligation to undertake an independent evaluation as to whether the requirements of Rule 1.7(b) are satisfied at each stage of the Investigation. At a minimum, such analysis requires that the Attorney General and each investigating lawyer reasonably conclude at each stage of the Investigation that their respective duties to consider, recommend and carry out appropriate courses of action with respect to the Investigation are not impaired by reason of any competing professional, personal or other interests.
    Introduction. In early 1999, the Office of the Attorney General (the “Office”) announced its intent to undertake an investigation to determine whether Utah criminal laws were violated by the Salt Lake City Bid Committee, which is being led by the Chief Deputy Attorney General (the “Investigation”). In view of the Attorney General’s prior association with the Bid Committee, Utah’s Solicitor General has requested an “ethics opinion or other guidance concerning the [Investigation] in view of the Attorney General’s involvement with the Bid Committee.”
    Background. The Bid Committee, a Utah nonprofit corporation, was formed in 1988 to seek the nomination of the United States Olympic Committee (“USOC”) to represent the United States in the international bidding process of the International Olympic Committee (“IOC”) to be selected as the host of the Olympic Winter Games. Following the USOC’s 1989 selection of Salt Lake City as the United States bid entry, the Bid Committee actively sought the 1998 Winter Games.
    In August 1989, Utah’s Attorney General, who was then in private practice, was invited to join the Bid Committee’s newly expanded Board of Trustees (the “Board”). After attending the first two meetings of the Board, the Attorney General resigned from the Board because of her intervening appointment as Utah’s Solicitor General.1
    In 1991, the IOC awarded the 1998 Winter Games to Nagano, Japan. The Bid Committee then sought and, in 1995, was awarded the 2002 Winter Games. In late 1998, news reports indicated that Bid Committee representatives may have engaged in activities intended to influence IOC representatives improperly to award the Games to Salt Lake City. Numerous investigations concerning the efforts of Salt Lake City and other Olympic host cities followed.2 (more…)

    Ethics Advisory Opinion No. 98-09

    (Approved October 30, 1998)
    Is the Office of the Guardian ad Litem sufficiently similar to the Attorney General’s Office to render it a “government agency” within the meaning of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct, and if so, does Rule 1.10 concerning imputed disqualifications, apply to the Office of the Guardian ad Litem? Does Rule 1.11, “Successive Government and Private Employment,” apply to the Office of the Guardian ad Litem?

    Opinion: Both rules apply to the Office of the Guardian ad Litem. For purposes of Rule 1.10 the Office of the Guardian ad Litem is a “firm,” but the Office of the Guardian ad Litem’s government sponsorship and statutory duties also make that office a “government agency” for Rule 1.11 application. Under the Rules, the terms “firm” and “government agency” are not mutually exclusive and, in certain cases as with the Office of Guardian ad Litem both terms apply. Application of Rule 1.10 and Rule 1.11 serves to maintain confidentiality without unduly hampering the Office of the Guardian ad Litem from performing its duty to protect the best interests of children through hiring qualified attorneys.
    Analysis: In response to an inquiry from the Office of the Guardian ad Litem, the Ethics Advisory Opinion Committee previously decided that that office is a “firm” for purposes of imputed disqualifications under Rule 1.10.1The Office of the Guardian ad Litem has submitted another request asking the Committee to reconsider the conclusion of Opinion 95-08 and to find that Rule 1.11 is the appropriate rule to apply to that office instead of Rule 1.10. As a request for reconsideration of a prior opinion, this request was not timely filed under our rules.2Nevertheless, because the request also raises a somewhat new issue involving Rule 1.11, we will grant a waiver of the 30-day requirement of Rule V(e)(1) and treat this as a late-filed request for reconsideration under our Rules of Procedure.
    In Opinion 95-08, we found that the opportunity to discuss cases with other Guardian ad Litem attorneys, access to common files and common supervision required the Office of the Guardian ad Litem to be considered as a firm for Rule 1.10 purposes. It is, accordingly, subject to the application of rules dealing with conflicts, including Rule 1.7 and its companion rule, Rule 1.10.
    For these purposes, the Office of the Guardian ad Litem is not a government agency similar to the Attorney General’s Office. First, the Utah Constitution broadly mandates that the Attorney General shall represent all the State officers, whose departments sometimes have conflicting interests, as well as undertake any other duties provided by law.3The Office of the Guardian ad Litem’s statutory mandate is narrowly defined and limited to representing minors before the court.4
    Second, the Attorney General does not always represent specific clients, while the Office of the Guardian ad Litem’s statutory purpose is to represent the best interests of specific individual clients. For the purposes of determining whether an organization is a “firm” within the meaning of Rule 1.10, the identification of the structure and client is far more important than is the source of funding. Despite the fact that the government pays for the Office of the Guardian ad Litem, the office can still be a “firm” for conflicts purpose. For example, the government may hire a law firm to represent poor people in their personal law suits. This may be the only thing that the law firm does, and the government’s funding may be the only source of income. Nevertheless, the law firm would still be a “firm” within the meaning of Rule 1.10. (more…)

    Ethics Advisory Opinion No. 97-08

    (Approved July 2, 1997)
    May an attorney, formerly employed by a government agency, represent a private client in challenging: (i) the validity or enforceability of statutes, rules, ordinances or procedures that the attorney participated in drafting; or (ii) specific contracts or easements that the attorney negotiated, drafted or reviewed for approval on behalf of the government agency?

    Opinion: (i) As a general rule, a former government agency is not prohibited from representing a private client in matters that involve the interpretation or application of laws, rules or ordinances directly pertaining to the attorney’s employment with a government agency. (ii) The attorney may not, however, represent such a client where the representation involves the same lawsuit, the same issue of fact involving the same parties and the same situation, or conduct on which the attorney participated personally and substantially on behalf of the government agency. In any event, an attorney may not undertake representation adverse to any former client where the matter is substantially factually related to the matter for which the former client retained the attorney’s services.
    Analysis: During his tenure as an Assistant City Attorney, a lawyer was involved in drafting a number of ordinances and in approving “as to form” a number of contracts and other documents. Among other tasks, the attorney undertook to draft an interim zoning ordinance and a final zoning ordinance adopted by the City. The attorney’s duties also included negotiating and recommending approval of a particular easement to place a public hiking trail at a specific location.
    Some time after leaving government employment, the attorney was approached by one or more prospective clients seeking to challenge the zoning ordinance and challenging the location of the trail. The City contacted the attorney and objected to his involvement on behalf of the private clients in these matters. The attorney has asked for our opinion, voicing concerns that much of his prospective client base depends on his ability to challenge ordinances and similar rules established by the City during his employment there.
    Utah Rules of Professional Conduct 1.11(a) prohibits a former government attorney, unless otherwise authorized by law, from representing a private client “in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated personally and substantially as a public officer or employee, unless the appropriate government agency consents after consultation.” As the facts have been presented here, there appears to be no argument that the attorney was personally and substantially involves as a government attorney in the negotiation, drafting and approval process with respect to the zoning ordinances and the easement. The analysis therefore turns on whether the proposed representation would constitute the same “matter” as the attorney’s prior government experience for purposes of Rule 1.11(a).
    Under Rule 11(d), the definition of “matter” expressly includes: “Any judicial or other proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other determination, contract, claim, controversy, investigation, charge, accusation, arrest or other particular matter involving a specific party or parties.”
    A government attorney who has been employed to assist in the drafting of ordinances or rules is not prohibited from subsequently challenging the validity or enforceability of such rules on behalf of a private client where the subsequent representation does not involve the same proceeding, parties or facts. There is no suggestion, either in the express definition or under any relevant interpretation of Rule 11 that a prohibited “matter” would extend so far as to encompass instances involving the mere interpretation of rules, ordinances, laws or procedures, the drafting or enactment of which the former government attorney might have assisted with. (more…)