| Date: | 09/15/1986 |
|---|---|
| Organization: | State Ethics Commission |
A lawyer in private practice may represent multiple municipalities and a private plaintiff in separate lawsuits in federal court where the issues involve separate parties, land areas, facts and standing issues.
In 1981, representatives of five Indian tribes filed separate land claim suits in Federal District Court.[1] Each complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief relating to the ownership and use of five land areas and named as defendants federal, state, county and municipal officials and private landowners. You represent the Town of Edgartown in Chappaquiddick Tribe; the Town of West Tisbury in Christiantown Tribe; and Hope Ingersoll in Herring Pond Tribe.
On May 26, 1986 the Federal District Court (Skinner.j.) issued decisions dismissing each of the five cases. The Mashpee dismissal was based on a res judicata determination from a previous lawsuit in which the standing of individual plaintiffs had been successfully challenged. In each of the four other cases, the court determined that the plaintiffs had not established the continuation of tribal existence.
The plaintiffs filed five separate notices of appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which has established a briefing schedule for the appeals. As an alternative to assigning the cases five separate docket numbers, the court clerk assigned the cases a common docket number and has indicated that the attorneys file a single brief, rather than five briefs.
Does G.L. c. 268A permit you to file a brief on behalf of the Town of Edgartown in Chappaquiddick, the Town of West Tisbury in Christiantown Tribe, and Hope Ingersoll in Herring Pond Tribe?
Yes.
In 1984, the Supreme judicial Court confirmed the Commission's conclusion that G.L. c. 268A, § 17[2] prohibits a municipal attorney from representing non-municipal parties in the same lawsuit. Town of Edgartown v. State Ethics Commission, 391 Mass. 83 (1984). The decision was based on the plain language of § 17 and on the priority of a policy which avoids potential questions over the municipal attorney's loyalty to the interests of the municipality.
As attorney for the Town of Edgartown in Chappaquiddick Tribe you are a municipal employee and a special municipal employee for the purposes of G.L. c. 268A. Id. While § 17 prohibits your representation in Chappaquiddick Tribe of parties other than the Town of Edgartown, § 17 does not restrict your representation of parties in other lawsuits provided that the lawsuits are different particular matters from Chappaquiddick Tribe. Compare, EC-COI-84-31; 81-28; 80-108.
The Christiantown Tribe case was initiated by representative of the Christiantown Tribe with respect to the ownership of a land area in West Tisbury. The Herring Pond Tribe case was initiated by representatives of the Herring Pond Tribe with respect to a third land area. Both the Christiantown Tribe and Herring Pond Tribe cases involve parties, land areas, facts and standing issues which are different from Chappaquiddick Tribe and are separate particular matters for the purposes of § 17. Your representation of parties in these three cases is therefore consistent with the conditions of § 17.
The Commission concludes that your representation of parties in these three cases may continue during the appeal process. The fact that the clerk for the Court of Appeals has assigned the cases a common docket number and has required the filing of a single brief appears to be intended to further the goal of administrative economy. These administrative actions, however, do not remove the fundamental differences among the three cases. Because the three cases retain their separate parties, land areas, facts and standing issues, they will continue to be treated as separate particular matters for the purposes of § 17.
End Of Decision
