Can a firm sue a city over a development when it represents the developer's architect on an unrelated matter but plans to withdraw, and the architect is not a party?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1991. 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
A lawyer wished to represent a client in a lawsuit against a municipality for improperly approving a development. The lawyer's firm represented the developer's architect on a completely unrelated matter but intended to withdraw from that representation, and the architect would not be a party to the lawsuit against the municipality.
The committee reviewed the inquiry as a possible conflict of interest. Based upon the facts as set out in the inquiry, the committee was of the opinion that there was no conflict of interest in undertaking the representation as proposed.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1991, before 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Did the firm have a conflict because it represented the developer's architect on another matter?
A: The committee was of the opinion that, on the facts presented, there was no conflict of interest in undertaking the lawsuit against the municipality.
Q: What facts did the committee rely on?
A: The committee noted the architect's matter was completely unrelated, the firm intended to withdraw from it, and the architect would not be a party to the lawsuit against the municipality.
Background and rules framework
The opinion addressed conflicts of interest under RPC 1.9, Washington's rule on duties to former clients, which corresponds to ABA Model Rule 1.9. The committee's no-conflict conclusion rested on the unrelatedness of the architect's matter, the firm's intended withdrawal, and the architect's absence as a party to the new lawsuit.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- ABA Model Rule 1.9 (duties to former clients)
- Washington RPC 1.9
See also
- ABA Formal Op. 479: 'Generally Known' Exception
- NY State Bar Op. 1018: Referral After a Conflict Exit
Source
- Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=517
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Advisory Opinion: 1437
Year Issued: 1991
RPC(s): RPC 1.9
Subject: Conflict of interest; client in unrelated matter involved in events in second client's lawsuit against third party
[The lawyer wished to represent a client in a lawsuit against a municipality for improperly approving a development. The law firm represents the architect for the developer on a completely unrelated matter, but intends to withdraw from that representation. The architect would not be a party to the lawsuit against the municipality.] The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning possible conflict of interest. Based upon the facts as set out in your inquiry, the Committee was of the opinion that there is no conflict of interest for you to undertake the representation as proposed.
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1991 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.