Can the plaintiff's lawyer in a garnishment also file the answer for the garnishee bank?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1953. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current Texas Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The inquiry asked whether the plaintiff's lawyer in a garnishment could file an answer for the garnishee bank.
The Committee unanimously concluded that the plaintiff's lawyer would violate Canon 6 by filing an answer for the garnishee without the consent of all concerned, given after full disclosure of all facts. It further concluded that the plaintiff's lawyer may ethically represent the garnishee once that consent is given (10-0).
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1953, under the former Texas Canons of Ethics, which the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct replaced effective January 1, 1990. Concurrent conflicts of interest and consent are now governed by Texas Disciplinary Rule 1.06 and ABA Model Rule 1.7. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Could the plaintiff's garnishment lawyer also file the garnishee's answer?
A: Only with consent. The Committee held that doing so without the consent of all concerned after full disclosure would violate Canon 6 (10-0).
Q: Could the lawyer represent the garnishee at all?
A: Yes, once the consent of all concerned is given after full disclosure of all facts.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets former Texas Canon 6 (representing conflicting interests), applied to a garnishment plaintiff's lawyer also acting for the garnishee. The modern analog is ABA Model Rule 1.7 (concurrent conflicts of interest), which permits some conflicts with informed consent.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- MR 1.7 (concurrent conflicts of interest), as the modern analog
- Texas Canon 6 (conflicting interests)
See also
- TX Ethics Op. 89: Contingent-Fee Subrogation Claims
- TX Ethics Op. 99: Insurer's Counsel and Conflicting Interests
- TX Ethics Op. 104: Imputed Conflict From a New Partner
Source
- Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-86/
- Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_86.pdf
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
QUESTION PRESENTED
Would it be a violation of the Canons of Ethics for the attorney for plaintiff in a garnishment to file answer for the garnishee bank?
18 Baylor L. Rev. 231 (1966)
CONFLICTING INTERESTS - GARNISHMENT
An attorney for plaintiff in a garnishment may represent the garnishee, provided the consent of all concerned is obtained after full disclosure of all facts.
Canon 6.
The members of the committee are unanimously of the opinion that the attorney for plaintiff in a garnishment would violate Canon 6 if he files answer for the garnishee without the consent of all concerned, given after full disclosure of all facts. It is the opinion of the members of the committee that the attorney for plaintiff may ethically represent the garnishee after such consent is given. (10-0)
Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 86 (1953)
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1953 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Texas Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.