While these standards have not been adopted in Montana, they are helpful advisory council. Before 1992, this standard s general prohibition provided, a prosecutor should avoid the appearance or reality of a conflict of interest with respect to official duties. The revision eliminating the language as to appearance of conflict was specifically intended to reflect the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct s reject of appearance based conflict of interest standards. Therefore, the present question is whether the prosecutor s knowledge of or interest in maintaining the drug forfeiture account and ancillary position creates a conflict with the prosecutor s official duty. This Committee feels that given the facts presented there is no evidence of conflict of interest.
Prosecutors are state advocates in an adversarial system.
They are not impartial or unbiased, but they must be fair in exercising their discretion to prosecute or seek civil forfeitures. In the interests of fairness they must not have a personal interest in the outcome of a case. In the present situation, the prosecutor may indeed have an interest in the case. However, the fact that the prosecutor s position is budgeted from this account does not create an impermissible interest. The prosecutor receives a set salary that is not dependent in any way on the result of the forfeiture action.