Can a lawyer who once represented an insurer's insured later sue a different person insured by that same insurer?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer asked whether having previously represented a client insured by an insurance company barred the lawyer from representing a new client against a different party insured by that same company. The committee was of the opinion that if, as the lawyer stated, the lawyer had never represented the insurance company and had no confidences or secrets regarding it, the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct do not preclude the lawyer from representing a client against a party insured by that company merely because the lawyer previously represented a client insured by it.

The committee noted a limit on its answer: it issues opinions only on the Washington RPCs and rendered no opinion on whether, in representing a client insured by the company, the lawyer may also have represented the company under Oregon law. The committee added that if, contrary to the lawyer's statement, the insurance company was the lawyer's client under Oregon law, that would pose a former-client problem under RPC 1.9 if the current representation is substantially related to the prior representation of the company, or if the lawyer acquired confidences or secrets relating to the company.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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. Washington's RPC 1.9 corresponds to ABA Model Rule 1.9 (duties to former clients).

Common questions

Q: Does representing an insurer's insured make the insurer your client?

A: The committee was of the opinion that if the lawyer never represented the insurer and has no confidences or secrets about it, the Washington RPCs do not treat the insurer as a former client that would bar adverse representation.

Q: When would RPC 1.9 bar the new representation?

A: The committee said that if the insurer was the lawyer's client under another state's law, RPC 1.9 would pose a former-client problem if the current matter is substantially related to the prior representation or the lawyer acquired confidences or secrets about the insurer.

Q: Did the committee decide the Oregon-law question?

A: No. The committee said it issues opinions only on the Washington RPCs and rendered no opinion on whether the lawyer may have represented the insurer under Oregon law.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied RPC 1.9 (duties to former clients, corresponding to ABA Model Rule 1.9). The committee made the analysis turn on whether the insurer was actually the lawyer's client and whether the lawyer held confidences or secrets, with the substantial-relationship test as the standard if a former-client relationship existed.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.9 (duties to former clients); Washington RPC 1.9

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1626: Firm Member on a City Council, Firm Adverse to the City

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=724

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1641
Year Issued: 1995
RPC(s): RPC 1.9
Subject: Conflict of interest; lawyer represents client adverse to insurance company that insured prior client

The Committee was of the opinion that if, as you state, you have never represented [Insurance Company] and have no confidences or secrets regarding [the Insurance Company], the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct do not preclude you from representing a client against a party insured by [the Insurance Company] merely because you previously represented a client insured by [the Insurance Company]. This Committee, however, issues opinions only on the Washington RPCs. The Committee renders no opinions on whether, in representing a client insured by [the Insurance Company], you may also have represented [the Insurance Company] under Oregon law.

If, contrary to your statement, [the Insurance Company] was your client under Oregon law, this will pose a former client problem under RPC 1.9 if the current representation is substantially related to your prior representation of [the Insurance Company] or you acquired confidences or secrets relating to [the Insurance Company].