Can a lawyer keep representing a client against a person who has become the client of another lawyer in the same firm?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1988. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The inquiry concerned a lawyer's continued representation of a client in a dispute with an individual who had become the client of another lawyer in the same firm. The situation put the firm on both sides of the dispute: one lawyer representing the inquiring lawyer's client, another lawyer in the firm representing the opposing individual.
The committee was of the opinion that RPC 1.7 and/or 1.9 would dictate that the firm could not continue to represent the inquiring lawyer's client in the dispute with the other individual unless each party consented to the representation after consultation as provided in that rule.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1988, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. The rules then numbered RPC 1.7 (conflicts of interest) and RPC 1.9 (duties to former clients) correspond to Model Rules 1.7 and 1.9 and were later amended. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.
Common questions
Q: Can a firm be on both sides of a dispute when two of its lawyers each represent an opposing party?
A: Per the opinion, not without consent. The committee was of the opinion that RPC 1.7 and/or 1.9 would bar the firm from continuing to represent the client in the dispute unless each party consented after consultation.
Q: What would let the representation continue?
A: Consent. The committee tied the permissibility of continuing to each party's consent to the representation after consultation as provided in the rule.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies the rules then numbered Washington RPC 1.7 (conflicts of interest) and RPC 1.9 (duties to former clients), corresponding to Model Rules 1.7 and 1.9. The committee treated the firm's representation of opposing parties through two of its lawyers as a conflict that the rule would not allow to continue absent the consent of each party after consultation.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Washington RPC 1.7 (conflict of interest), corresponding to Model Rule 1.7.
- Washington RPC 1.9 (duties to former clients), corresponding to Model Rule 1.9.
See also
- WSBA Ethics Op. 1160: consent of the affected parties allowing continued representation
- WSBA Ethics Op. 1129: written consent of the wife after the firm represented both spouses
- WSBA Ethics Op. 1159: imputed disqualification where the lawyer's former firm represents the opposing parties
Source
- Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=250
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Advisory Opinion: 1170
Year Issued: 1988
RPC(s): RPC 1.7; 1.9
Subject: Conflict of interest; representation adverse to client of another lawyer in same firm
The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning your continued representation of a client in a dispute with an individual who had become the client of another lawyer in your firm. The Committee was of the opinion that RPC 1.7 and/or 1.9 would dictate that your firm could not continue to represent your client in the dispute with the other individual unless each party consented to such representation after consultation as provided in that rule.
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1988 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.