Can a lawyer represent a workers' compensation claimant against a corporation when the lawyer is a close friend of, and has personally represented, the corporation's president?

Plain-English summary

A member had been retained to pursue a workmen's compensation claim against a corporation. The president of the corporation was a close personal friend whom the lawyer had previously represented, though the lawyer had never represented the corporation itself, and the president was at that time erecting a building on the lawyer's behalf. The claimant, the corporation, and its president had all been fully advised of these facts. The inquiry was whether the lawyer could ethically proceed to represent the claimant.

The committee was unanimous that, after full disclosure of the facts and after obtaining the clients' consent, there was no ethical objection to representing the claimant against the corporation merely because the president was a close friend, had been a client, and was building for the lawyer. However, if the prior representation of the president had given the lawyer any information that might be of value to the claimant, or if the relationship with the president was so close that the lawyer's judgment might be affected in advising the claimant, then the lawyer should not act for the claimant in the pending proceeding; Canons 6, 11, and 37 might be involved. The committee deemed it prudent to advise all parties of the circumstances in writing and to take other reasonable steps to obviate any possible misunderstanding.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1965, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. The opinion applied former Canons 6, 11, and 37 of the Canons of Professional Ethics; concurrent conflicts are now governed by Rule 4-1.7 and duties to former clients by Rule 4-1.9 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Model Rules 1.7 and 1.9). Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current rules before relying on any specific requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer sue a corporation whose president is a close friend and former personal client?

A: The committee said yes, after full disclosure and the clients' consent, where the friendship and prior personal representation alone are involved.

Q: When must the lawyer decline?

A: He should not act for the claimant if the prior representation of the president gave him information that might be of value to the claimant, or if the relationship was so close that his judgment in advising the claimant might be affected.

Q: What did the committee suggest the lawyer do procedurally?

A: It deemed it prudent to advise all parties of the circumstances in writing and to take other reasonable steps to obviate any possible misunderstanding.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied former Canons 6 (conflicting interests), 11 (trust and confidence), and 37 (confidences of a client) of the Canons of Professional Ethics. Concurrent conflicts of interest are now governed by Rule 4-1.7 and duties to former clients by Rule 4-1.9 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Model Rules 1.7 and 1.9). Consent after full disclosure was central to the committee's analysis.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canon 6 [Canons of Professional Ethics; conflicting interests; see current Rule 4-1.7]
• Canon 11, Canon 37 [Canons of Professional Ethics; trust and client confidences; see current Rule 4-1.9]

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 65-41: Insurer's Lawyer Representing a Claimant Against the Insurer
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 65-46: Associate Switching Firms Mid-Matter
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 65-59: Former Corporate Counsel Acting Against the Company

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-65-23/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-65-23.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 65-23
April 30, 1965
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
A lawyer may represent a workmen's compensation claimant even though the lawyer has previously acted as attorney for the president of the corporate employer in personal matters and has a close personal relationship with the president, provided that the relationship would not adversely affect the representation of the claimant and did not result in the lawyer having confidential information that would be useful in the representation.
Canons: 6, 11, 37
Chairman Smith stated the opinion of the committee:
A member of The Florida Bar has been retained to pursue a workmen's compensation claim brought against a corporation. The president of the corporation is a close personal friend of his and he has previously represented the president although he has never represented the corporation. The claimant, the corporation and its president have been fully advised of the facts mentioned. The inquiry is whether, under the circumstances, he can ethically proceed to represent the claimant in the pending workmen's compensation case.
It is the unanimous view of this Committee that, after full disclosure of the facts and after obtaining the consent of the clients, there is no ethical objection to representing the workmen's compensation claimant against the corporation merely because the president of the corporation is a close personal friend, has been a client, and is now erecting a building on the lawyer's behalf. However, if the representation of the president has resulted in his obtaining any information that might be of value to the claimant, or if the relationship with the president is so close that the lawyer's judgment as an attorney may be affected in advising the claimant, then he should not act for the claimant in the pending proceeding. Canons 6, 11, and 37 of the Canons of Professional Ethics may be involved.
The Committee would deem it prudent to advise all parties concerned in writing of the circumstances and to take such other reasonable steps as might be necessary to obviate any possible misunderstanding.