May a lawyer sue over an accident at a hotel that an insurance-company client of his had previously insured?

Plain-English summary

A member asked about the propriety of representing a client involved in an accident at a hotel, where the accident occurred after the policy period during which the hotel had been insured by a client of his. The committee found no impropriety in his representing such a client, provided no disclosures had been made to him by the hotel in connection with the matter he intended to sue on, and it stated he should disclose his position to all interested parties. Unless there were other conflicts the member did not mention, the committee found no impropriety in the representation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1960, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. It applied former Canon 6 of the Canons of Professional Ethics; conflicts of interest and duties to former clients are now addressed by Rules 4-1.7 and 4-1.9 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Model Rules 1.7 and 1.9). Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against the current rules before relying on any specific requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could the lawyer sue over the hotel accident given his prior insurer client?

A: Yes, in the committee's view, provided the accident fell after the insurer client's policy period and the hotel had made no confidential disclosures to him about the matter.

Q: What did the committee require the lawyer to do?

A: It stated he should disclose his position to all interested parties, and it conditioned its conclusion on the absence of any relevant confidential communications and of other unmentioned conflicts.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied former Canon 6 of the Canons of Professional Ethics. Conflicts of interest and duties to former clients are now addressed by Rules 4-1.7 and 4-1.9 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Model Rules 1.7 and 1.9). The committee's analysis turned on the absence of relevant confidences from the hotel and on disclosure to interested parties.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canon 6 [Canons of Professional Ethics; see current Rules 4-1.7, 4-1.9]

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 65-23: Claim Against a Corporation of a Lawyer's Friend
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 62-9: Representing a New Client Against a Former Client's Matter
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 60-36: Foreclosing on a Partner's Former Client

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-59-37/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-59-37-1.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 59-37
May 17, 1960
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
Upon full disclosure of the situation, and in the absence of any relevant confidential communications because of the relationship, it is not improper for an attorney to represent a client involved in an accident at a hotel subsequent to the time during which this hotel had been insured by a client of the lawyer.
Canon: 6
Chairman Holcomb stated the opinion of the committee:
A member of The Florida Bar requests our opinion as to the propriety of his representing a client involved in an accident at a hotel subsequent to the policy period during which this hotel had been insured by a client of his. We find no impropriety in his representing such client provided no disclosures have been made to him by the hotel in connection with the matter he intends suing on. We think he should disclose his position to all interested parties.
Unless there are other conflicts which he does not mention, we find no impropriety in such representation.