‼️
Prof Responsibility • Loyalty
PR#043
Legal Definition
Generally, if a lawyer faces a conflict of interest, no lawyer in that lawyer's firm may represent the client because the conflict has been imputed to them. According to Rule 1.10(a), the affected client(s) can resolve an imputed conflict by giving informed, written consent. Additionally, some conflicts can be resolved through appropriate screening procedures, where the conflicted lawyer is isolated from any participation in the matter.
Plain English Explanation
Lawyers work pretty closely with one another in law firms. When one lawyer has a conflict – maybe they used to represent the opposing side or have personal interests in a case – it's assumed that this conflict could affect all the other lawyers in the firm too (it's safe to assume lawyers talk around their law firm water cooler). This is called an "imputed conflict" because the conflict is basically transferred to everyone else.
The law takes this seriously because clients need to trust that their lawyer is 100% on their side. If there's even a chance that information or loyalties might be compromised within a firm, it's seen as a problem for all lawyers there.
However, there are ways to handle this. The simplest is for the client to say, "I understand the situation, but I'm okay with it." This agreement must be in writing and only after the client fully understands the potential risks.
In some cases, firms can use a "screening" process (which we will talk about in other cards). This means they set up strict rules to keep the conflicted lawyer completely away from the case. They can't discuss it, access files, or benefit financially from it. It's like putting up an invisible wall within the office to protect the client's interests.
The law takes this seriously because clients need to trust that their lawyer is 100% on their side. If there's even a chance that information or loyalties might be compromised within a firm, it's seen as a problem for all lawyers there.
However, there are ways to handle this. The simplest is for the client to say, "I understand the situation, but I'm okay with it." This agreement must be in writing and only after the client fully understands the potential risks.
In some cases, firms can use a "screening" process (which we will talk about in other cards). This means they set up strict rules to keep the conflicted lawyer completely away from the case. They can't discuss it, access files, or benefit financially from it. It's like putting up an invisible wall within the office to protect the client's interests.
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob is a partner at a large law firm. He used to represent a big tech company in patent cases. Now, Sam comes to Bob's firm wanting to sue that same tech company for patent infringement. Bob tells Sam he can't personally take the case due to his past work, but suggests his colleague Amy could handle it instead. Result: This is a classic imputed conflict situation. Even though Bob isn't personally taking the case, his past work for the tech company creates a conflict for the entire firm. The firm cannot represent Sam unless they obtain informed, written consent from both Sam and the tech company, explaining the potential risks of the representation. Additionally, the firm would need to implement strict screening procedures to ensure Bob has no involvement in or access to information about Sam's case.
Hypo 2: Bob works at a small law firm. His brother Bert is being sued for breach of contract by a local business. Sam, the owner of that business, comes to Bob's firm seeking representation in the lawsuit against Bert. Result: Bob's personal relationship with Bert creates a conflict of interest that is imputed to the entire firm. The firm cannot represent Sam in this case unless Sam provides informed, written consent after being fully advised of the potential risks. Even with consent, the firm would need to implement strict screening procedures to ensure Bob has no involvement in the case against his brother.
Hypo 3: Bob's law firm is representing Sam in a complex business dispute. Midway through the case, Bob's wife inherits a significant amount of stock in the company Sam is suing. Result: Bob's newly acquired financial interest in the opposing company creates a personal conflict that is imputed to the entire firm. To continue representing Sam, the firm must obtain Sam's informed, written consent after fully disclosing the situation. The firm would also need to implement strict screening procedures to ensure Bob has no further involvement in Sam's case and doesn't benefit financially from it.
Hypo 2: Bob works at a small law firm. His brother Bert is being sued for breach of contract by a local business. Sam, the owner of that business, comes to Bob's firm seeking representation in the lawsuit against Bert. Result: Bob's personal relationship with Bert creates a conflict of interest that is imputed to the entire firm. The firm cannot represent Sam in this case unless Sam provides informed, written consent after being fully advised of the potential risks. Even with consent, the firm would need to implement strict screening procedures to ensure Bob has no involvement in the case against his brother.
Hypo 3: Bob's law firm is representing Sam in a complex business dispute. Midway through the case, Bob's wife inherits a significant amount of stock in the company Sam is suing. Result: Bob's newly acquired financial interest in the opposing company creates a personal conflict that is imputed to the entire firm. To continue representing Sam, the firm must obtain Sam's informed, written consent after fully disclosing the situation. The firm would also need to implement strict screening procedures to ensure Bob has no further involvement in Sam's case and doesn't benefit financially from it.
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 some common issues that occur when a lawyer represents multiple clients in the same matter?
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 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?
