Can a firm that once represented a couple now represent the opposing insurer in those former clients' personal injury suit?

Plain-English summary

The law firm had previously represented a husband and wife in business matters and on a speeding ticket. The firm now represented the defendant's insurance carrier in a personal injury case brought by those former clients.

The committee was of the opinion that, based on the facts of the prior representation and the present litigation, the matters may be substantially related, and if so, the firm would need to withdraw pursuant to RPC 1.9(a). The committee was further of the opinion that even if the matters were not substantially related, the firm would still be required to withdraw pursuant to RPC 1.9(b) and RPC 1.7(b).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1991, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Washington 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 firm oppose its own former clients on behalf of an insurer?

A: Under this 1991 opinion, on these facts the firm had to withdraw either way: under RPC 1.9(a) if the matters were substantially related, and under RPC 1.9(b) and 1.7(b) even if they were not.

Q: Does it matter whether the prior matters were related to the personal injury case?

A: It affects which rule applies, not the outcome; the committee concluded withdrawal was required whether or not the matters were substantially related.

Background and rules framework

At the time of this opinion, Washington's RPC 1.9(a) and (b) governed duties to former clients and RPC 1.7(b) governed conflicts that materially limit a representation, the subjects the Model Rules place in Rules 1.9 and 1.7. The committee found that the firm's prior relationship with the couple required withdrawal under one provision or another regardless of substantial relationship.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.7 (conflicts of interest)
• ABA Model Rule 1.9 (duties to former clients)
• Washington RPC 1.7(b), 1.9(a), 1.9(b)

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1380: Husband's Consult, Wife's Divorce
• WA Ethics Op. 1350: Former AAG Suing a Former Client College

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=470

Original opinion text

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

The law firm previously represented a husband and wife in business matters and on a speeding ticket. The law firm now represents the defendant's insurance carrier in a personal injury case brought by the former clients. The Committee was of the opinion that, based upon the facts presented in your inquiry concerning the representation by your law firm of the husband and wife clients, and the facts of the present litigation, the matters may be substantially related and if so, you would need to withdraw pursuant to RPC 1.9(a). The Committee was further of the opinion that if the matters were not substantially related, you would still be required to withdraw pursuant RPC 1.9(b) and RPC 1.7(b).