Can an attorney continue to represent a client if a conflict exists?

Hypo 1: Bob is an attorney representing Sam in a personal injury case against a restaurant. Midway through the case, Bob realizes that he also represents the restaurant's supplier in an unrelated contract dispute. Bob believes he can still effectively represent both clients without compromising either case, but recognizes that the lawsuit may bankrupt the restaurant and significantly reduce the restaurant supplier's revenue. Result: Bob can continue representing Sam if he reasonably believes he can competently handle both cases, the representation isn't prohibited by law, the cases don't directly involve each other, and both Sam and the supplier give informed, written consent after Bob fully explains the situation. If all these conditions are met, Bob's continued representation would be permissible under Rule 1.7(b).

Hypo 2: Bob is representing Sam in a complex business merger. During the process, Bob learns that one of his other clients, a small tech company, is being acquired as part of the merger. Bob believes he can still effectively represent both clients. Result: In this case, even if Bob believes he can competently represent both clients and obtains their informed, written consent, he likely cannot continue the representation. This is because the merger directly involves both clients, potentially pitting their interests against each other in the same matter. This scenario would likely fail the third requirement of Rule 1.7(b), which prohibits the direct assertion of a claim by one client against another.

Hypo 3: Bob is representing Sam in a divorce case. Bob's law firm is approached by Sam's soon-to-be ex-wife, Amy, for representation in an unrelated real estate matter. Bob believes he can keep the cases separate and represent both clients effectively. Result: If Bob reasonably believes he can competently represent both clients, the representation isn't prohibited by law, and the divorce and real estate cases don't directly involve each other, Bob can potentially continue representing both clients. However, he must fully disclose the situation to both Sam and Amy, explain any potential risks or limitations, and obtain their informed, written consent. If all these conditions are met, Bob's continued representation would comply with Rule 1.7(b).

Hypo 4: Bob is representing Sam in a whistleblower case against a large corporation. Midway through the case, Bob's law firm merges with another firm that represents the corporation in unrelated matters. Bob believes he can still effectively represent Sam. Result: This situation could potentially fall under Rule 1.7(b). If Bob reasonably believes he can competently continue representing Sam, the representation isn't prohibited by law, and the whistleblower case doesn't directly involve the other matters the firm handles for the corporation, Bob might be able to continue. However, he would need to implement strict ethical walls within the firm to prevent any information sharing, and most importantly, he would need to fully disclose the situation to Sam and obtain his informed, written consent. The corporation would likely need to consent as well.

Hypo 5: Bob is representing Sam in a criminal defense case. During the trial, the prosecution calls Bob's brother, Bert, as a surprise witness. Result: This situation would likely not fall under Rule 1.7(b). The conflict here - Bob potentially having to cross-examine his own brother - is too direct and immediate to be resolved by the rule's provisions. This scenario would likely require Bob to withdraw from the case, as it would be difficult for Bob to reasonably believe he could remain competent and diligent in his representation of Sam while also potentially damaging his relationship with his brother. Moreover, this situation could create an appearance of impropriety that could harm Sam's case, regardless of Bob's actual conduct.