If a D.C. lawyer is asked to help one client respond to a third-party subpoena that seeks information about another of the lawyer's clients, is that a conflict of interest?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2021. 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 381 (published February 2021) considers whether a lawyer creates a conflict by representing one client (the opinion calls it the "Prospective Client") in responding to a third-party subpoena, when the subpoena seeks documents, things, or testimony that name or concern another current or former client (the "Other Client"). The Committee concludes that, ordinarily, this is not a conflict under Rule 1.7(b), because the party that issued the subpoena, not the subject of it, is adverse to the responding client, and responding does not amount to taking a "position" against the named persons. The respondent's focus, and so the scope of the representation, is the legality and propriety of the subpoena and the proper objections to it.
A conflict can arise, however, where the lawyer's knowledge changes the picture. The opinion concludes the lawyer must assess, after reasonable diligence on the subpoena (its proceeding, time period, scope, and the named persons), whether the lawyer knows the responding client possesses responsive information that is or likely will be adverse to the Other Client. If so, and if that knowledge would likely adversely affect either representation, there is a Rule 1.7(b)(2) or (b)(3) conflict. Even absent such knowledge, the lawyer must consider a personal conflict under Rule 1.7(b)(4), for example where a long-standing, lucrative relationship with the Other Client might cause the lawyer to pull punches in the new representation. Where a conflict exists, the lawyer may proceed only on informed consent under Rule 1.7(c), which is unavailable if seeking it would require disclosing a client's Rule 1.6 confidences.
The opinion also addresses conflicts that surface mid-representation. If, after taking the engagement, the lawyer discovers (before production) information that appears genuinely damaging to the Other Client, the lawyer must re-assess subjectively and objectively whether either representation would be compromised; if so, informed consent is required, and failing that, the lawyer must retain conflicts counsel (if permissible and the client agrees) or withdraw. By contrast, if responsive material later proves damaging only as an "unwitting" side effect that the lawyer could not have known about after reasonable diligence, the opinion concludes there is no Rule 1.7 violation. For former clients, the opinion applies Rule 1.9: no conflict unless the subpoena matter is the same as or substantially related to the prior representation and the interests are materially adverse.
In practice
Under this opinion, a D.C. lawyer asked to represent a client in responding to a third-party subpoena that names or concerns another of the lawyer's clients should perform reasonable diligence on the subpoena and then ask whether the lawyer knows the responsive material is, or likely will be, adverse to the Other Client. The opinion concludes that absent such knowledge (and absent a personal conflict under Rule 1.7(b)(4)), the representation is generally permissible, because the subpoena's issuer, not its subject, is the adverse party.
The opinion makes the analysis ongoing. If the lawyer later discovers, before production, information that appears genuinely (not speculatively) damaging to the Other Client, the opinion concludes a conflict can arise that requires informed consent under Rule 1.7(c); if consent cannot be sought or obtained, the lawyer must use conflicts counsel where permissible or withdraw. For a former Other Client, the opinion concludes Rule 1.9 controls, with a conflict only where the matters are the same or substantially related and the interests are materially adverse. The opinion notes it may be prudent, absent Rule 1.6 obstacles, to notify the Other Client of the engagement, though notice is not generally required.
Common questions
Q: Is it a conflict to help one client answer a subpoena that asks about another of my clients?
A: The opinion concludes it ordinarily is not, because the subpoena's issuer (not its subject) is adverse to the responding client, and responding does not take a position against the named persons.
Q: When does responding to the subpoena become a conflict?
A: The opinion concludes a conflict arises when, after reasonable diligence, the lawyer knows the responsive information is or likely will be adverse to the Other Client and that knowledge would likely impair either representation, or when the lawyer has a personal conflict under Rule 1.7(b)(4).
Q: What if responsive documents turn out to hurt my other client, but I had no way to know?
A: The opinion concludes that an unwitting, adverse side effect the lawyer could not have known about after reasonable diligence is not a Rule 1.7 violation, even if the information is later used against the Other Client.
Q: What if I discover damaging information after I take the engagement?
A: The opinion concludes that if, before production, the lawyer discovers information that genuinely appears damaging to the Other Client, the lawyer must re-assess for a conflict and, if one exists, obtain informed consent, use conflicts counsel where permissible, or withdraw.
Q: Does the former-client rule change the analysis?
A: The opinion concludes that under Rule 1.9 there is no conflict in responding to a subpoena about a former client unless the subpoena matter is the same as or substantially related to the prior representation and the interests are materially adverse.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets D.C. Rule 1.7(b) and 1.7(c) (current-client and personal-interest conflicts and informed consent) and Rule 1.9 (former-client conflicts), read together with Rule 1.6 (confidentiality), Rule 1.10 (imputed disqualification), and the diligence and competence duties of Rules 1.1 and 1.3. It frames the conflicts inquiry around what the lawyer actually knows after reasonable diligence on the subpoena, distinguishing real, knowable adversity from speculation about what responsive documents might contain.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- D.C. RPC 1.7(b), 1.7(c) / Model Rule 1.7 (current-client and personal-interest conflicts; informed consent)
- D.C. RPC 1.9 / Model Rule 1.9 (duties to former clients)
- D.C. RPC 1.6 / Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality of confidences and secrets)
- D.C. RPC 1.10 / Model Rule 1.10 (imputed disqualification)
- D.C. RPC 1.1, 1.3 / Model Rules 1.1, 1.3 (competence; diligence)
See also
- NYC Bar Ethics Op. 2022-1: Subpoena Seeking Client Information
- ABA Formal Op. 473: Compulsory Process for Client Information
- Ohio Ethics Op. 2023-004: Subpoena for a Former Client's File
- DC Ethics Op. 390: Prior-Work Conflicts and Lawyer as Witness
Source
- Landing page: https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/ethics-opinions-210-present/ethics-opinion-381
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 2021 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.