Can one lawyer jointly represent a husband and wife who want help negotiating the terms of their divorce?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1993. 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 243 (adopted October 19, 1993) addressed a lawyer who also works as a domestic-relations mediator and arbitrator and proposed a private practice in which she would form a client-lawyer relationship with both spouses in an uncontested divorce. She would give both spouses legal advice, propose solutions to advance their mutual interests on property, support, and custody, draft the agreement, and represent both before the court, using the safeguards of Rule 2.2 and the guidelines of the committee's Opinion 143.
The committee concluded that the proposal went well beyond the narrow joint representation it had allowed in Opinion 143, which involved spouses of comparable means, no children, and a property division and all substantial terms already agreed before counsel was retained. Rule 1.7(a) absolutely bars representing clients with adverse positions in the same matter, and Comment [6] to Rule 1.7 cites Opinion 143 as setting out the "limited circumstances" in which the rule would not preclude representing both parties in an uncontested divorce. The committee concluded that Rule 2.2, the new intermediary rule, does not carve out a significant exception to Rule 1.7 in divorce cases: Rule 2.2 was not drafted with divorce in mind, its commentary points to "joint venture"-type situations, and common representation (unlike mediation or arbitration) keeps the lawyer's full duties to advise each client, represent each client's interests, and preserve each client's confidences.
The committee held that the contemplated practice, jointly representing a husband and wife who seek help resolving their disagreement over the terms of dissolution, would place too great a strain on the duty of loyalty to each client and is not permitted. It emphasized, however, that a lawyer may serve as a mediator for divorcing spouses so long as no client-lawyer relationship is established, in which case the Rules of Professional Conduct do not govern, and the lawyer must tell the parties at the outset that no client-lawyer relationship exists.
Currency note
The D.C. Bar flags Opinion 243 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 1993, 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: Can a lawyer represent both spouses to help negotiate an uncontested divorce?
A: No. The committee concluded that a lawyer may not jointly represent a divorcing husband and wife who seek the lawyer's help in resolving their disagreement over the terms of the divorce.
Q: Doesn't the intermediary rule (Rule 2.2) allow joint representation?
A: Not for this kind of divorce practice. The committee concluded that Rule 2.2 was not drafted with divorce in mind and does not carve out a significant exception to Rule 1.7(a) for jointly representing spouses negotiating their divorce terms.
Q: Can a lawyer mediate a divorce instead of representing both spouses?
A: Yes, if no client-lawyer relationship forms. The committee concluded that mediation without a client-lawyer relationship is not governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct, but the lawyer must tell the parties at the outset that no client-lawyer relationship exists.
Q: What about the narrow joint representation allowed in Opinion 143?
A: It remains limited. The committee noted Opinion 143 permitted joint representation only on narrow facts (comparable means, no children, all substantial terms agreed before counsel was retained) and concluded the proposed broad practice fell outside it.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interpreted D.C. Rule 1.7(a) (the absolute bar on representing clients with adverse positions in the same matter) and D.C. Rule 2.2 (the intermediary rule, which had no counterpart in the former Code), reading them together with the committee's prior Opinion 143. The committee treated Comment [6] to Rule 1.7, which cites Opinion 143, as confining joint representation in uncontested divorces to narrow circumstances, and concluded Rule 2.2's "joint venture"-oriented intermediary standard does not extend to negotiating a couple's divorce.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- D.C. RPC 1.7(a) / Model Rule 1.7 (simultaneous representation of clients with adverse positions)
- D.C. RPC 2.2 (lawyer as intermediary)
Other opinions cited:
- D.C. Bar Opinion 143 (1984): joint representation in divorce is generally impermissible but was allowed on narrow facts
- Kentucky Bar Association Opinion E-290 (1984): joint representation permitted under similarly limited circumstances
- Oregon Bar Opinion 515 (1988): same
See also
- DC Ethics Op. 248: Joint Representation Conflicts
- DC Ethics Op. 265: Positional Conflicts
- ABA Formal Op. 08-450: Confidentiality, Multiple Clients
Source
- Landing page: https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/ethics-opinions-210-present/ethics-opinion-243
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1993 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.