Speakers:

Alessandra Mourão
Founding and Managing Partner, Nascimento e Mourão Advogados, former Chair of the Professional Ethics Committee, current member of Professional Ethics Committee Advisory Board

Andrew Martin
Associate Professor, Schulich School of Law at Dalhousie University, member of the Ontario Bar

Stephen Rotstein
Assistant Deputy Minister of Courts and Justice Services in the Government of Nunavut, Vice Chair at Tribunals Ontario, officer of the IBA Forum for Government and Public Lawyers

Moderated by Andrew Mackenzie, Co-Chair, IBA Forum for Government and Public Lawyers

Introduction

Lawyers are subject to the rules and obligations of their institution. But what happens to these obligations when a lawyer is equally a civil servant, with a duty to the public? How does this affect ethical duties, such as confidentiality or secrecy? How can lawyers ensure they are fulfilling their obligations both to the public and to the bar?

On 27 May 2026, the IBA Forum for Government and Public Lawyers hosted a webinar to discuss the personal and professional ethical challenges government and public lawyers face in balancing their obligations to the bar with their duties to the public as civil servants. Government and public lawyers are subject to the same responsibilities as private lawyers and have the additional burden of the duties and obligations that arise as civil servants. The speakers explored these issues by discussing their own personal and professional experiences and drawing from the jurisdictional circumstances.

Over 400 IBA members registered for the webinar, with attendees from all regions. With support from the IBA Professional Ethics Committee and the IBA Public Law Section, the Forum hosted a fruitful discussion with extensive Q&A delegate engagement.

The webinar was chaired by Andrew Mackenzie, Co-Chair of the IBA Government and Public Lawyers Forum and Chief Executive of the Scottish Arbitration Centre.

This report outlines the highlights from the discussion and the guidance given by the panel to attendees in addressing these conflicts.

Navigating the conflicting duties of being a lawyer and a public servant

Andrew Mackenzie began by acknowledging that lawyers are regulated in their jurisdiction, but government and public lawyers may have additional codes of conduct to follow. He asked the panel to provide an overview of any conflicting duties as a lawyer and a public servant that may arise in their jurisdiction.

Andrew Martin remarked that these conflicts vary depending on a lawyer’s jurisdiction, but the most significant area of overlap is between lawyers’ duties of and public servants’ duties of secrecy. The law of public service does not always account for being a lawyer, and the bar’s obligations do not account for being a public servant.

Stephen Rotstein discussed the conflicts that arise between his professional and personal conduct as a senior government lawyer. He commented that while those in private practice have a distinction between their job and personal life, as a government employee, his ‘personal life is a carved-out’ part of his job because he must disclose outside business activities and is restrained in his political expression. Outside of the office, he must distinguish that what he is sharing are his own views, not of the Government of Nunavut.

Alessandra Mourão observed that in Brazil, approximately 30,000 of Brazil’s 1.3 million practising lawyers work for government. She highlighted the tension between private and public practice: while a private lawyer cannot report a client’s corruption, a public lawyer must report corruption by public officials. Lawyers working in both roles must know when to ‘change hats’. Alessandra Mourão identified that the public code of conduct demands that civil servants do not offend the public image, whereas private lawyers are not restricted by this code.

Political activity, personal views and opinions in conflict with the civil servant obligations

Andrew Mackenzie shifted the discussion and asked the panel to focus on how individual governments or public lawyers manage constraints on expressing their personal or political views given their role.

Andrew Martin emphasised that in Ontario’s provincial government, legislation permits non-managerial employees to participate in political activity in their own time, if they were not in uniform or using public resources. However, he noted that although it was permitted, he still felt uncomfortable aligning himself publicly with a certain party due to the potential impact on his work and therefore chose not to participate.

Stephen Rotstein shared that as a senior government official, he was restricted in the political activity he could engage in; while financial contributions were permitted, he cannot express outward support for one political party. He remarked that in a senior position, the better approach was not to engage. However, he warned of a broader issue that is not as prevalent in private practice: people have political views and working for the Crown can mean that occasionally, lawyers will either have to represent a perspective they disagree with or resign.

Andrew Martin remarked that this issue arises with social media and is relevant for younger lawyers in private practice, whose clients’ views may not align with their own.

Alessandra Mourão discussed the differences in her jurisdiction, emphasising the importance of Brazil’s Public Service Entrance Exam. After passing the exam, public lawyers are granted stability in their positions as independent actors, not tied to the government. These public lawyers can hold their own personal views and cannot be dismissed without a judicial ruling or administrative disciplinary process.

Managing pressure from governments or international public bodies

Andrew Mackenzie considered the pressure that certain lawyers in differing jurisdictions will face, given their role as civil servants. He asked the panel how they see, hear or experience pressure from clients, specifically governments or international public bodies.

Stephen Rotstein highlighted the presence of a hierarchy in the government: as lawyers advance into more senior positions, the level of pressure tends to increase. He noted that those in more junior positions are insulated from involvement and benefit from greater protection through unions, statutes, or the common law. Overall, he emphasised that in the government, the political side is the decision-maker, and the civil side is the implementer: ‘You have to square the circle, do what needs to be done.’

Alessandra Mourão agreed, referencing her personal experience with pressure while working in government. She underscored the importance of public lawyers in Brazil having independence from the system and the crucial role that the local bar association plays in supporting lawyers. The independence allows lawyers to avoid political pressure, making lawyers ‘loyal to the rule of law and the Constitution, not the politicians.’

Andrew Martin offered a different perspective. Although the political pressure increases within the bureaucracy, new lawyers are the ones who usually face pressure to act unethically given their employment instability with shorter-term contracts.

Private sector lawyers working for the government

Lastly, Andrew Mackenzie asked Andrew Martin for his thoughts on private sector lawyers working for the government. In Canada, there can be constitutional concerns regarding the Attorney General’s ability to contract outside of the government. There is always a question as to why an outside lawyer is needed, such as special expertise that is not available in house or another opinion that does not have the same obligations as a public servant.

Following the panel, the participants responded to several questions from attendees on implied as opposed to overt pressure, the ethical line between the profession and loyalty to the government, and handling shifting political regimes.

This webinar report was prepared by the IBA Legal Policy & Research Unit.