When a firm represented several aligned parties but only the lead client paid, what does the firm owe the others once that client sells out and drops the appeal?

Plain-English summary

A firm had been employed primarily by one client to represent him in a proceeding that involved the like interests of other parties, and the firm had been induced to appear for all of those interested parties. The lead client paid the agreed fee in full, then sold his property and directed the firm not to proceed further on his behalf in connection with an appeal the opposition had taken. The firm asked the extent of its duty to the other interested parties it had previously represented.

The Committee concluded that the firm should notify all persons it had previously represented or assumed to advise, and any other interested parties it had reason to believe had relied on its representation (including the purchaser from the lead client), of the status of the case: that the firm's original client had withdrawn as a party and instructed the firm not to resist the appeal, and that the firm would not proceed further unless authorized, employed, and paid by other interested parties. The firm was not obligated to resist the appeal unless satisfactory arrangements were made for employment and compensation, but it was obligated to see that everyone who had relied on its representation clearly understood they would be without counsel unless counsel was employed to resist the appeal.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1950, under the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics and decades before Oklahoma adopted the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (1988) and the later Ethics 2000 revisions. The notice-on-withdrawal and multiple-client duties discussed here are now addressed in the modern rules on withdrawal, communication, and concurrent representation (Model Rules 1.16, 1.4, and 1.7 and their Oklahoma counterparts). Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did the firm have to keep fighting the appeal for the unpaid parties?

A: No. The Committee said the firm was not obligated to resist the appeal unless satisfactory arrangements were made for its employment and compensation by other interested parties.

Q: What did the firm have to do for the other parties?

A: Notify all of them, including the purchaser from the lead client, of the case's status and make clear that they would be without counsel unless they employed counsel to resist the appeal.

Background and rules framework

The opinion did not turn on a numbered rule. It addressed a firm's residual duty to parties it had jointly represented once the paying client withdrew, framing that duty as one to give clear notice so the remaining parties were not left unknowingly without counsel. It predates the Model Rules and made no Model Rule citation.

Citations and references

The opinion cited no rules, statutes, cases, or prior opinions.

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 139: Defense lawyer newly retained by the school board
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 131: Salaried lawyer turning over collected attorney fees
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 130: Suing an heir's share after withdrawing from the probate

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-144/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted April 12, 1950

THE FACTS

A firm of lawyers primarily employed by one client to represent him in a proceeding involving like interests of other parties, and which firm of lawyers had been induced to appear for all of these interested parties, was paid in full the agreed fee by the particular client who had initially employed them. The primary client, having sold his property, the firm was directed by that client not to proceed further upon behalf of that particular client in connection with an appeal which had been taken by the opposition. The firm of lawyers desires to know the extent of its duty to the other interested parties previously represented.

QUERY

What is the extent of the duty of the law firm to the collateral clients?

ANSWER

The firm should notify all persons whom it has previously represented in the proceeding, or whom it has assumed to advise, and any and all other parties interested which the firm has reason to believe have placed reliance in and on the legal representation previously furnished (including the purchaser from the primary client), as to the status of the case and that the firm's original client has withdrawn as a party and has instructed the firm that it does not wish to resist the appeal, and that the firm will not proceed further unless authorized, employed and paid to do so by other interested parties. Under the circumstances, the firm of attorneys is certainly not obligated to resist the appeal unless satisfactory arrangements are made for employment and compensation for this purpose. But the firm is obligated to see that all persons, or parties, previously relying upon the representation by said firm of attorneys are made clearly to understand that they will be without counsel unless counsel is employed for the purpose of resisting the appeal.