Can a lawyer represent a party against a former client in unrelated litigation?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned a possible conflict of interest where the lawyer had previously represented one party who was now on the opposing side of pending litigation. The committee, working from the facts as the inquirer set them out, concluded that the previous representation did not appear to have involved matters now related to the pending litigation.

On that basis, and on its understanding that there was no present attorney-client relationship with the former client and that the new representation of the adverse parties did not involve the former client's confidences or secrets, the committee concluded that representing the adverse parties would not violate RPC 1.7.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1985, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. The committee analyzed the question under RPC 1.7; in current practice, duties to a former client are addressed principally by the successive-conflict rule (Model Rule 1.9 and its Washington counterpart). Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 lawyer take a case against a former client?

A: On the facts presented, the committee concluded it would not violate RPC 1.7 to represent parties adverse to a former client where the new matter is unrelated and does not involve the former client's confidences or secrets.

Q: What facts mattered to the committee's conclusion?

A: The committee relied on there being no present attorney-client relationship with the former client and on the prior representation not involving matters that relate to the pending litigation.

Q: What if the prior representation had involved the same matters?

A: The committee's conclusion was expressly tied to the prior representation not appearing to involve matters now related to the pending litigation and to the absence of the former client's confidences or secrets in the new representation.

Background and rules framework

The committee analyzed the inquiry under Washington RPC 1.7 (conflict of interest), which corresponds to Model Rule 1.7, and framed its conclusion around two factors: the absence of a present attorney-client relationship and the absence of the former client's confidences or secrets in the new representation. Those factors track the analysis now generally associated with duties to a former client (Model Rule 1.9), though the committee resolved the question under RPC 1.7 as it then stood.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Washington RPC 1.7 (conflict of interest), corresponding to Model Rule 1.7.

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 1022: imputed disqualification where a firm is adverse to a former firm's clients
• WSBA Ethics Op. 923: conflict from association with opposing counsel in a probate matter
• ABA Formal Op. 99-415: representation adverse to a former employer by a former in-house lawyer

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=61

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 950
Year Issued: 1985
RPC(s): RPC 1.7
Subject: Conflict of interest; representation adverse to former client in unrelated litigation

From its review of your inquiry concerning a possible conflict of interest, the Committee was of the opinion, based upon the facts as set out in your inquiry, that your previous representation of one party in the present litigation does not appear to have involved matters which now relate to the pending litigation. Therefore, based upon its understanding that there is no present attorney-client relationship with the former client, and that the present representation of the adverse parties does not involve confidences or secrets of the former client, your representation of the adverse parties now does not violate RPC 1.7.