Can one firm jointly represent several claimants to a limited fund and help them divide the award?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1991. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Opinion 217 (adopted January 15, 1991) addressed a firm that proposed to represent three clients in Copyright Royalty Tribunal proceedings, where cable-retransmission royalties are allocated first among claimant groups (Phase I) and then among each group's members (Phase II). The firm had represented two of the clients before, and the three wanted to submit their claims as a single group, with any resulting award allocated among them by agreement. The terms of the clients' prior settlements were confidential by contract.
The committee explained that Rule 1.7(a) absolutely bars representing one client in a position adverse to another client's position in the same matter, but that its reach is narrow, applying only where the firm would actually be called upon to espouse adverse positions. If a client chose to forgo an adverse position, for example because the benefits of joint representation outweighed a small chance of a larger individual recovery, Rule 1.7(a) would not apply and Rule 1.7(b) would govern, permitting joint representation with each client's consent after full disclosure. The committee stressed that full disclosure had to include a frank discussion of Rules 1.9 and 1.6, the risk that the firm could be precluded from representing any of the clients if they could not agree on an allocation, and the firm's prior representation of two of them.
The committee concluded the firm plainly could not advocate for any of the three in dividing the award, since more for one would mean less for another, but that it could serve as an intermediary under Rule 2.2 to help them agree, provided the Rule 2.2(a) conditions were met, with a written explanation of the risks where feasible and withdrawal under Rule 2.2(d) if the intermediation failed. On the prior settlements, the committee concluded the firm's contractual confidentiality obligations were independent of Rule 1.6, noted that general knowledge of the terms on which tribunal disputes had been resolved might not be a "secret," and observed that Rule 1.6 permits using or revealing confidences with the client's consent after full disclosure.
Currency note
The D.C. Bar flags Opinion 217 as having been substantively affected by the amendments to the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct that became effective February 1, 2007.
This opinion was issued in 1991, before the District of Columbia's adoption of the 2007 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.
Common questions
Q: Could a firm jointly represent several claimants competing for the same limited fund?
A: Yes, with consent. The committee concluded that, where the clients chose to forgo adverse positions, Rule 1.7(b) permitted joint representation with each client's informed consent after full disclosure.
Q: Could the firm argue for one client's larger share against the others?
A: No. The committee concluded the firm could not advocate for any client in dividing the award, because more for one would mean less for another.
Q: Could the firm help the clients agree on how to split the award?
A: Yes, as an intermediary. The committee concluded the firm could serve as an intermediary under Rule 2.2 to facilitate an allocation agreement, subject to that rule's conditions and a written explanation of the risks.
Q: Did the firm's prior confidential settlements bar the joint representation?
A: No. The committee concluded any contractual confidentiality obligations were independent of Rule 1.6, and that Rule 1.6 permits using confidences with the clients' consent after full disclosure.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interpreted D.C. Rules 1.7 and 2.2. Rule 1.7(a) imposes an absolute bar on representing clients taking adverse positions in the same matter, while Rule 1.7(b) permits potentially conflicting representation with informed consent under Rule 1.7(c). Rule 2.2 allows a lawyer to act as an intermediary between clients if the lawyer consults each on the implications, reasonably believes the matter can be resolved on compatible terms with little risk of prejudice, and can act impartially; Rule 2.2(d) requires withdrawal if a client requests it or the conditions fail. The committee read these together with Rules 1.6 and 1.9 on confidences and former clients.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- D.C. RPC 1.7 / Model Rule 1.7 (conflicts; multiple representation)
- D.C. RPC 2.2 / Model Rule 2.2 (lawyer as intermediary)
- D.C. RPC 1.6 / Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality)
- D.C. RPC 1.9 / Model Rule 1.9 (duties to former clients)
Statutes:
- 17 U.S.C. § 111(d), Copyright Royalty Tribunal distribution of cable-retransmission royalties
Other opinions cited:
- D.C. Opinion 143 (1984): a client may choose to forgo arguments after consultation
- D.C. Opinion 158 (1985): conflicts in multiple representation
- D.C. Opinion 175 (1986): a lawyer's general knowledge from practice is not a client secret
See also
- DC Ethics Op. 243: Joint Representation in Divorce Cases
- DC Ethics Op. 296: Joint Representation and Confidentiality of Information
- DC Ethics Op. 248: Multiple Plaintiffs Claiming Employment Discrimination
Source
- Landing page: https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/ethics-opinions-210-present/ethics-opinion-217
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1991 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.