After dropping one spouse, can a lawyer keep representing the other spouse in a car-crash case where the spouses blame each other?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer asked about representing a married couple involved in a car crash. One spouse was driving, and that spouse and the other driver each blamed the other for the accident. Since the original inquiry, the lawyer had ceased representing the husband, who was referred to other counsel, and the remaining question was whether the lawyer could continue to represent the wife.

The committee was of the opinion that RPC 1.7 would permit the continued representation of the wife, provided the lawyer has the written consent of both the husband and the wife.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1992, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 the lawyer keep representing the wife after withdrawing from representing the husband?

A: The committee was of the opinion that RPC 1.7 permits the continued representation, provided the lawyer has the written consent of both spouses.

Q: Whose consent is required if only the wife remains a client?

A: The committee required the written consent of both the husband and the wife.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied RPC 1.7 (conflict of interest involving current and former co-clients), corresponding to ABA Model Rule 1.7. The lawyer had jointly considered representing both spouses, who were potentially adverse on fault for the crash, then narrowed to the wife alone. The committee treated written consent from both the husband and the wife as the condition allowing the lawyer to continue with the wife.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

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

See also

• ABA Formal Op. 05-436: Advance Waiver of Conflicts
• WA Ethics Op. 1406: Representing Both GAL and Adverse Client

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=547

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1467
Year Issued: 1992
RPC(s): RPC 1.7
Subject: Conflict of interest; representation of married couple in tort case where spouses are potentially adverse

The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning representation of a married couple who were involved in a car crash. [One spouse was driving; that spouse and the other driver both blame each other for the accident.] The Committee understands that since making your original inquiry, you have ceased to represent the husband who has now been referred to other counsel. The issue now is whether you may continue to represent the wife. The Committee is of the opinion that RPC 1.7 would permit such representation provided that you have the written consent of both the husband and the wife.