Note that although not covered in the above article, the letter does not advise that there is no conflict of interest. It also says that the Ethics Committee was not informed that the City and Election Commission are directly adverse to one another. This might be a misrepresentation of what could occur Aspen were the Election Commission to take any action viewed as adverse by the City Council.
The letter does say that if the Election Commission is a "client" of the city attorney then the Election Commission's consent is required if there is a significant risk of conflict of interest. I think this important finding ought to have been reported in the above article. The Ethics Committee declined to advise on whether or not the EC is a "client" of the city attorney as this is a matter of law, and apparently would have to be determined in court. If the EC is a client, they are allowed to decline to be served by the City Attorney. If not, then they presumably have the right to have access to counsel. As I read it, either way, the City would not be able to force the EC to be represented by the City Attorney.
[above is opinion by Harvie Branscomb]
The actual letter from the Colorado Bar Association Ethics Committee regarding conflict of interest of a city attorney in advising both the City Council and the Election Commission is below the break.
Here is the original pdf: Worcester letter