Opinion ID: 2263509
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Alleged Violations of Montgomery County Charter and Code of Professional Responsibility.

Text: The lower court held that §§ 20A-7 and 20A-8 of the Ordinance constituted an unlawful and ultra vires delegation of authority, duties and powers of the County Attorney in violation of the provisions of Section 213 of the Montgomery County Charter. [8] As heretofore indicated, these sections of the Ordinance assign the County Attorney the functions of issuing advisory opinions concerning the applicability of the Ordinance to a County employee who requests such advice; investigating and reporting complaints of alleged violations; and seeking the appropriate court or administrative remedy where there is a failure to comply with the provisions of the Ordinance. The lower court was of the opinion that because § 213 of the Charter did not specifically include the functions assigned to the County Attorney by §§ 20A-7 and 20A-8, these sections were ultra vires the Charter. The court stated that as the previous County Charter has assigned the County Attorney [s]uch other functions as may be provided by law or assigned to him by the county council, but the present Charter contained no such provision, the present Charter intended that the County Attorney perform only those limited duties, powers and functions and exercise authority specifically granted in Section 213 of the ... Charter. We hold that the lower court was in error in so deciding. Section 213 of the Charter provides that the County Attorney shall be the chief legal officer of the county entrusted with the responsibility of conducting all the law business of the county. Maryland Code (1973 Repl. Vol.) Art. 25A, § 5 (Q) authorizes the County to enact local laws ... to govern the conduct and actions of all ... county officers in the performance of their public duties ...; and § 5 (S) permits the County to enact all such ordinances as may be deemed expedient in maintaining the ... good government ... of the county. These provisions, along with the power conferred on the County by § 29-10 of the State Act to enact a local financial disclosure law, plainly authorized the County Council to invest the County Attorney with the duties imposed upon him by §§ 20A-7 and 20A-8 of the Ordinance. [9] The lower court was also in error in concluding that the responsibilities imposed upon the County Attorney by the Ordinance conflicted with three disciplinary rules of the Code of Professional Responsibility (Md. Rules, Appendix F), viz., DR 4-101 (B), requiring an attorney to preserve confidences and secrets of a client; DR 5-101 (B) restricting the occasions when an attorney may testify; and DR 7-101 (A)(3) generally prohibiting an attorney from prejudicing or damaging his client during the course of the professional relationship. The lower court's holding was premised on the assumption that the County Attorney frequently represents County employees in judicial proceedings and renders legal advice to them and that § 20A-7 (d), pursuant to which the County Attorney renders advisory opinions, created an attorney-client relationship. Under § 213 of the Charter, the County and its instrumentalities are the County Attorney's clients, not individual County employees. The County Attorney advises employees only insofar as their interests coincide with those of the County. We, therefore, hold that nothing in the Code of Professional Responsibility inhibits the County Attorney from performing the duties imposed upon him under the Ordinance. Judgment reversed; each party to pay its respective costs.