If a lawyer who was a child's guardian ad litem joins the firm representing the parent accused of injuring the child, can the firm keep representing the parent?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry involved a lawyer who had previously served as guardian ad litem for a child and was now joining a law firm that represented the child's mother, who was alleged to have injured the child. The committee noted that, on the facts presented, a new guardian ad litem had already been appointed for the child.

The committee was of the opinion that, before the lawyer continued to represent the mother, it would be necessary to disclose the former guardian ad litem's prior involvement to the present guardian ad litem and to obtain the present guardian ad litem's consent to the continued representation. The committee based its opinion on RPC 1.7(b).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1987, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can a lawyer who was a child's guardian ad litem later work on the case for the parent accused of harming the child?

A: The committee concluded the lawyer could continue only after the prior guardian ad litem involvement was disclosed to the child's present guardian ad litem and that guardian consented, under RPC 1.7(b).

Q: Whose consent did the committee require?

A: The present guardian ad litem's. Because a new guardian ad litem had been appointed for the child, the committee directed the disclosure and consent to that current guardian.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied RPC 1.7(b) (the then-current Washington conflict-of-interest rule for a representation that may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to a third person or by the lawyer's own interests, corresponding to ABA Model Rule 1.7). The committee treated the lawyer's prior service as the child's guardian ad litem as the source of the conflict and made continued representation of the mother turn on disclosure to, and consent from, the child's current guardian ad litem.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.7 (conflict of interest: current clients); Washington RPC 1.7(b)

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 1016: State-Paid GAL, Private Work
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1014: Parent-Paid Lawyer for a Child
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1028: Loss-of-Consortium Conflict

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1134

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1092
Year Issued: 1987
RPC(s): RPC 1.7(b)
Subject: Conflict of interest; prior guardian ad litem for a child joining law firm that represents parent alleged to have injured child

The Committee considered your inquiry regarding the obligations of a lawyer who had previously been guardian ad litem for a child and who is now joining a law firm which represents the child's mother, whom, its is alleged, may have injured the child.

The Committee also understands under the facts presented that a new guardian ad litem has been appointed for the child.

The Committee was of the opinion that prior to the lawyer continuing to represent the mother, it would be necessary to disclose to the present guardian ad litem the prior involvement of the former guardian ad litem, and have the present guardian ad litem's consent to the continued representation of the mother by the lawyer. The Committee based its opinion on Rule 1.7(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.