Is a lawyer conflicted from suing an alleged harasser who once briefly discussed the allegations with the lawyer's then-partner?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry asked whether there is a conflict of interest for an attorney to represent the plaintiff in a sexual harassment lawsuit when the alleged harasser had briefly discussed the harassment allegations with the attorney's former law partner. That discussion occurred while the attorney was still a partner at the now-former firm.

The committee concluded there were insufficient facts to analyze either the conflict of interest question or whether an attorney-client relationship exists between the alleged harasser and the former law partner with respect to the lawsuit. It stated that the reasonable belief of the client controls on the question of whether an attorney-client relationship exists, and that the inquiring attorney may wish to consider requesting a court ruling on the conflict of interest issue.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 cited rule corresponds to ABA Model Rule 1.10 (imputation of conflicts of interest).

Common questions

Q: Was there a conflict on these facts?

A: The committee concluded there were insufficient facts to analyze the conflict of interest question.

Q: How is it decided whether the alleged harasser became a client of the former partner?

A: The committee said the reasonable belief of the client controls on whether an attorney-client relationship exists.

Q: What can the inquiring lawyer do about the uncertainty?

A: The committee said the lawyer may wish to consider requesting a court ruling on the conflict of interest issue.

Background and rules framework

The opinion considered RPC 1.10 (imputation of conflicts within a firm, corresponding to ABA Model Rule 1.10) where an alleged wrongdoer had spoken with a lawyer's then-partner about the same matter. The committee did not resolve the conflict because the facts were insufficient to establish whether an attorney-client relationship had formed, a threshold that turns on the putative client's reasonable belief, and it pointed to a court ruling as the available path to resolution.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.10 (imputation of conflicts of interest); Washington RPC 1.10

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 1240: Brief Consult, No Imputed Conflict
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1718: Leaving In-House for a Rival Field

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=805

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1733
Year Issued: 1997
RPC(s): RPC 1.10
Subject: Conflict of interest; former partner discussed allegations with alleged wrongdoer

I have been instructed to respond to your ethics inquiry regarding whether there is a conflict of interest for an attorney to represent the plaintiff in a sex harassment lawsuit when the alleged harasser briefly discussed the harassment allegations with the attorney's former law partner. The discussion occurred while the attorney was still a partner at the (now former) law firm.

The Committee concluded that there are insufficient facts to analyze either the conflict of interest question or whether an attorney/client relationship between the alleged harasser and the former law partner exists with respect to the sex harassment lawsuit. The reasonable belief of the client controls on the question of whether an attorney/client relationship exists. The inquiring attorney may wish to consider requesting a court ruling on the conflict of interest issue.