Overview:
A proposed bill to prohibit full-time government attorneys from private legal practice drew mixed views at a public hearing, with supporters citing conflicts of interest and public confidence while Special Prosecutor Tamara Hutzler called for a broader review of Palau’s Ethics Act.
By: Eoghan Olkeriil Ngirudelsang
NGERULMUD, Palau (Nov. 2, 2026) — A bill that would prohibit government attorneys from engaging in private practice drew debate at an October 30 public hearing, with supporters citing concerns about conflicts of interest and public confidence, while Special Prosecutor Tamara Hutzler urged lawmakers to review the Ethics Act more broadly.
This House Bill No. 12-54-8 was introduced by Ngiwal Delegate Ngirameketii on the eighth day of the House’s eighth regular session. Ngirameketii said “current employees of the Attorney General practice law privately”. He said the bill aims to end that practice and, most importantly, prevent conflicts of interest.
The hearing highlighted differing views on whether existing professional rules sufficiently address those concerns or whether an explicit legal prohibition is needed.
Calls for a broader review
Hutzler, who disclosed at a separate October 21 hearing that she also has two long-time private clients while serving as special prosecutor, questioned the narrow focus of the proposed amendment.
She told delegates that “there are significant issues with the ethics act as a whole” and urged them, if they “are going to amend the law, sit down and actually take a look at it in totality rather than this very specific thing”.
Hutzler acknowledged the concerns that prompted the legislation, saying she could “understand why this issue was raised – because of what’s, in my opinion, poor judgment on a couple of the AAG’s who took on very high-profile cases”.
She nevertheless emphasized that attorneys belong to a highly regulated profession and are already bound by extensive rules of professional responsibility governing their conduct.
Concerns about fairness
Attorney Toribiong distinguished between full-time government attorneys and private lawyers retained by government agencies for temporary legal services.
He said a lawyer’s association with the Office of the Attorney General can affect how opposing clients perceive the fairness of court proceedings. When a lawyer who reports to work at the AG’s office later appears in court “on behalf of a private client, that has changed the atmosphere of a level playing field. My client begins to believe that the government is supporting the other side of the equation. That creates a sense of unfairness”.
Toribiong urged delegates to consider an attorney’s workplace and source of compensation when defining full-time government employment.
He told them that “the word full time should be considered in the context of where he works? Where’s his office? and Who pays for his salary?”
Toribiong also extended the discussion beyond assistant AGs to elected officials also engaged in private practice, such as the Vice President. He described an experience stating, “I have a clan for a client with many – many members and the other side shows up with the Vice- President. We get nervous.”
“Sometimes they file a complaint with the ethics commission saying,’How come we voted for this man to be our representative in the government and he’s taking sides against us? My clients filed complaints”.
Toribiong also raised concerns about attorneys receiving government salaries for full-time work while also taking time for private clients.
Although the legal profession regulates itself through its own ethical code, he said, “just from the appearance of propriety, my clients are concerned about elected officials or full-time employees of the Office of the Attorney General being fully subsidized and then represent private clients”.
Public Defender Moses pointed to distinctions between government service and private legal work elsewhere in the region.
“From my own experience with countries in the Pacific region, there is a clear boundary between public service and private commercial practice. The core restrictions being exclusivity of public duties, the second being the preventing of conflicts of interest and third is the separation of practicing environments”, Moses said.
Ethics Commission supports the bill
Ethics Commission Chairperson Joyce Isechal expressed support for the measure, saying “it enforces the core integrity of the government legal representation”.
She described the current law as “ambiguous, and that’s where the loophole is”, adding, “and that is why I think we need this legislation”.
Isechal made the commission’s position explicit, stating that “the ethics commission supports this legislation”.
The proposed bill would provide a one-month transition period following presidential approval. Isechal said that would give affected attorneys enough time to decide whether to remain in government service or move into private practice.
“I think this window provides sufficient time for current full -time government attorneys to take an active choice: commit exclusively to public service or complete an complete an orderly transition to private practice”, she said.
She added that the transition period would give “the AG’s office and affected agencies adequate time to adjust workloads and plan necessary recruitment”.
Reported by AG Rengiil during a press conference, three assistant attorneys general are engaged in private practice, including the special prosecutor and elected officials representing private clients, while also serving full time in government positions.