‼️
Prof Responsibility • Loyalty
PR#024
Legal Definition
Representing multiple clients in the same matter raises risks that your service may become materially limited as a result of the others' interests. Such potential conflicts require disclosure and consent. Examples include: (1) a corporation and any of its officers, directors, employees, or shareholders; and (2) both spouses in an uncontested divorce or drafting wills. According to Rule 1.7, these potential conflicts must be addressed through informed consent, confirmed in writing.
In criminal cases, representing multiple parties may also conflict with the client's 6th Amendment guarantee of effective assistance of counsel.
In criminal cases, representing multiple parties may also conflict with the client's 6th Amendment guarantee of effective assistance of counsel.
Plain English Explanation
Imagine you're at a dinner party, and you're trying to have separate conversations with two people at the same time. You might find yourself torn between the two, unable to give either your full attention. Similarly, when a lawyer represents multiple clients in the same matter, they might find their loyalties divided or their ability to fully advocate for each client compromised.
For example, if a lawyer represents both a company and one of its employees in a lawsuit, what happens if the company's best defense is to blame the employee? The lawyer would be in a tough spot, unable to fully represent both clients' interests.
That's why the law requires lawyers to be upfront about these potential conflicts. They must explain the risks to all involved clients and get their informed agreement in writing before proceeding. This ensures that everyone understands and accepts the situation.
In criminal cases, this issue is even more serious. The Constitution guarantees defendants the right to effective legal representation. If a lawyer represents multiple defendants in the same criminal case, there's a risk that serving one client's interests might hurt another's defense, potentially violating this constitutional right.
For example, if a lawyer represents both a company and one of its employees in a lawsuit, what happens if the company's best defense is to blame the employee? The lawyer would be in a tough spot, unable to fully represent both clients' interests.
That's why the law requires lawyers to be upfront about these potential conflicts. They must explain the risks to all involved clients and get their informed agreement in writing before proceeding. This ensures that everyone understands and accepts the situation.
In criminal cases, this issue is even more serious. The Constitution guarantees defendants the right to effective legal representation. If a lawyer represents multiple defendants in the same criminal case, there's a risk that serving one client's interests might hurt another's defense, potentially violating this constitutional right.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob, a lawyer, is asked to represent both Sam and his business partner in a contract dispute with a supplier. Initially, Sam and his partner agree on how to handle the case. Result: Before agreeing to represent both, Bob must disclose the potential for conflict if their interests diverge later in the case. He must obtain informed consent, confirmed in writing, from both Sam and his partner. Even with consent, Bob should continually monitor the situation for any developing conflicts.
Hypo 2: Bob represents Sam and his wife in drafting their wills. Both spouses initially agree on how to distribute their assets. Result: This is a classic example of potential conflict in estate planning. Bob must explain to Sam and his wife that he cannot keep secrets between them in this joint representation. He should also discuss what would happen if they later disagree about the terms of their wills. Bob needs to obtain informed consent, confirmed in writing, from both spouses before proceeding.
Hypo 3: Bob is asked to represent both Sam and George, who are co-defendants in a criminal case. The prosecution has offered a plea deal to whichever defendant testifies against the other first. Result: This scenario presents a serious conflict of interest. Bob cannot adequately represent both Sam and George when their interests are directly opposed. The plea deal creates an incentive for each to turn against the other. Moreover, this conflict implicates their Sixth Amendment rights to effective counsel. Bob should decline to represent both defendants and advise them to seek separate counsel.
Hypo 4: Bob represents Sam's small corporation in a lawsuit. As the case progresses, it becomes clear that Sam, as the CEO, may have made decisions that expose him to personal liability. Result: This situation reveals how conflicts can develop in corporate representation. Bob must clarify whether he represents just the corporation or Sam individually as well. If both, a conflict has arisen as the corporation's interests (which might include holding Sam accountable) now diverge from Sam's personal interests. Bob may need to withdraw from representing one or both clients, depending on the specifics of his engagement and whether he can obtain informed consent to continue.
Hypo 2: Bob represents Sam and his wife in drafting their wills. Both spouses initially agree on how to distribute their assets. Result: This is a classic example of potential conflict in estate planning. Bob must explain to Sam and his wife that he cannot keep secrets between them in this joint representation. He should also discuss what would happen if they later disagree about the terms of their wills. Bob needs to obtain informed consent, confirmed in writing, from both spouses before proceeding.
Hypo 3: Bob is asked to represent both Sam and George, who are co-defendants in a criminal case. The prosecution has offered a plea deal to whichever defendant testifies against the other first. Result: This scenario presents a serious conflict of interest. Bob cannot adequately represent both Sam and George when their interests are directly opposed. The plea deal creates an incentive for each to turn against the other. Moreover, this conflict implicates their Sixth Amendment rights to effective counsel. Bob should decline to represent both defendants and advise them to seek separate counsel.
Hypo 4: Bob represents Sam's small corporation in a lawsuit. As the case progresses, it becomes clear that Sam, as the CEO, may have made decisions that expose him to personal liability. Result: This situation reveals how conflicts can develop in corporate representation. Bob must clarify whether he represents just the corporation or Sam individually as well. If both, a conflict has arisen as the corporation's interests (which might include holding Sam accountable) now diverge from Sam's personal interests. Bob may need to withdraw from representing one or both clients, depending on the specifics of his engagement and whether he can obtain informed consent to continue.
Visual Aids
Related Concepts
Are lawyers allowed to have sex with their clients?
Can an attorney continue to represent a client if a conflict exists?
Does representing clients with inconsistent positions violate the lawyer's Duty of Loyalty?
How can a lawyer limit their malpractice liability with a client?
How can screening avoid imputed conflicts?
How do the California rules differ from the ABA when it comes to a lawyer accepting compensation from a party other than their client?
In assessing a conflict of interest, what is a concurrent conflict?
In assessing the Duty of Loyalty, what's the difference between an actual conflict and a potential conflict?
In California, are lawyer's allowed to have sex with their clients?
In California, how can a lawyer limit their malpractice liability with a client?
In California, how must a lawyer advise their client to seek independent counsel when dealing with potential financial conflicts?
In California, may a lawyer represent an insurance company and its policyholder as joint clients?
In California, what are the restrictions related to lawyers acquiring the media rights of their clients?
In California, what are the restrictions related to lawyers receiving gifts from their clients?
In California, when may a lawyer loan money to a client?
What are the most common types of conflicts of interest that involve a lawyer's own interest?
What are the restrictions related to lawyers acquiring the media rights of their clients?
What are the restrictions related to lawyers receiving gifts from their clients?
What is an imputed conflict and how can it be resolved?
What is required in order for a lawyer to accept compensation from a party other than their client?
What is required in order for a lawyer to avoid a financial conflict with a client?
What is the Duty of Loyalty?
When does the general rule of imputed conflicts NOT apply?
When may a lawyer appear as a witness in a matter where they represent a party?
When may a lawyer loan money to a client?
When may there be a conflict of interest with a former client?
