Can one lawyer represent both a husband and wife in separate criminal domestic violence cases they have against each other?

Plain-English summary

The committee was of the opinion that representation of both a husband and wife in separate criminal domestic-violence cases against each other, by one lawyer, would violate the Rules of Professional Conduct because of a conflict of interest. The committee described the conflict concretely: the lawyer would be in a position of either having to condone perjury by one client or expose one client to liability for criminal conduct.

For that reason, the committee was of the opinion that the lawyer could not meet the requirement in RPC 1.7(a)(1) that the lawyer "reasonably believes the representation will not adversely effect the relationship with the other client."

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1987, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. The conflict rule then numbered RPC 1.7, with the quoted (a)(1) standard, corresponds to Model Rule 1.7 and was rewritten in the current rules. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule language quoted here.

Common questions

Q: Can the same lawyer defend both spouses when each has a criminal case against the other?

A: No. The committee was of the opinion that doing so is a conflict of interest that violates the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Q: What was the specific conflict the committee identified?

A: The committee said the lawyer would be in a position of either having to condone perjury by one client or expose one client to liability for criminal conduct.

Q: Why couldn't RPC 1.7 be satisfied here?

A: Because of that conflict, the committee was of the opinion the lawyer could not meet RPC 1.7(a)(1)'s requirement that the lawyer reasonably believe the representation will not adversely affect the relationship with the other client.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Washington RPC 1.7(a)(1), the concurrent-conflict rule then in force, corresponding to Model Rule 1.7. The committee treated the two criminal cases as directly adverse: the lawyer's duty to each spouse-client would be at war with the duty to the other, because advancing one defense would require either tolerating the other client's perjury or exposing the other client to criminal liability. That made the (a)(1) "reasonably believes" condition impossible to satisfy.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Washington RPC 1.7(a)(1) (conflict of interest; concurrent representation), corresponding to Model Rule 1.7.

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 980: whether a lawyer who represented both spouses may now represent the wife in a guardianship over her husband
• WSBA Ethics Op. 962: two people with adverse claims from one death who each consulted the same firm
• WSBA Ethics Op. 916: a prosecutor's office representing two parents seeking support from the same parent

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=195

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1097
Year Issued: 1987
RPC(s): RPC 1.7
Subject: Conflict of interest; representation of both husband and wife in separate domestic violence cases against each other

The Committee was of the opinion that the representation of both a husband and wife in separate criminal domestic violence cases against each other by one lawyer would constitute a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct in that there would be a conflict of interest because the lawyer would either be in a position of having to condone perjury by one client, or expose one client to liability for criminal conduct. Therefore, the Committee was of the opinion the lawyer could not meet the requirement in RPC 1.7(a)(1), that the lawyer "reasonably believes the representation will not adversely effect the relationship with the other client."