Home/ Cases/ Texas Bar Ethics Opinion 666

Bar Ethics & Discipline

Texas Bar Ethics Opinion 666

Texas Bar Ethics Opinion 666 (December 2016) addresses conflicts of interest for attorneys married to one another and appearing on opposing sides of a matter. Its predecessor, Opinion 539 (April 2002), addressed the same conflict for spouses in a DA-vs-defense configuration and grounded the conflict in Texas community-property law: the defense attorney has a personal financial interest in the DA’s continued employment because half of the DA’s salary becomes part of the partner’s community estate.

The structural gap

Both opinions use spousal / married language throughout. Neither was updated after Obergefell v. Hodges (June 2015) extended legal marriage nationwide. Neither addresses unmarried domestic partners — couples who share a home, finances, decades of life, and (under community-property logic) a financial interest in each other’s professional success — but who have not legally married.

The result is a structural gap in the formal conflict-of-interest review mechanism. The same gap exists in the ABA Model Rule 1.7 language (“closely related by blood or marriage”) that almost every U.S. state has adopted. The systemic implication is national.

What this case examines

  1. The text and intent of Opinion 539 and Opinion 666
  2. The post-Obergefell language gap and how it functions in practice
  3. The national-scope problem via ABA Model Rule 1.7 (50-state implications)
  4. The proposed remedy and the legislative / professional-responsibility path forward

Stable claims

  • Opinion 666 exists, was issued December 2016, uses “married” language. Documented
  • Opinion 539 exists, was issued April 2002, uses “spouse” language, grounds conflict in community property. Documented
  • Obergefell v. Hodges decided June 26, 2015. Documented
  • Neither opinion has been updated post-Obergefell to extend coverage to domestic partners. Documented
  • ABA Model Rule 1.7 uses “closely related by blood or marriage” language and has not been updated to extend coverage to domestic partners. Documented
  • Opinion 666 is published and archived by the Texas Center for Legal Ethics. Documented

Speculative or open

  • Whether any U.S. state bar has issued a formal opinion or rule revision since June 2015 that explicitly extends “blood or marriage” coverage to non-marital domestic-partner attorney households. Open
  • Whether the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility has considered the post-Obergefell language gap in any formal opinion, working paper, or symposium since 2015. Open
  • Whether disciplinary case law in any U.S. jurisdiction has extended the spousal language to a non-marital partnership through interpretation rather than rule revision. Open

Last reviewed: 2026-05-09.