Can a lawyer represent a client again in a new matter after a court-appointed guardian had replaced the lawyer in an earlier case?

Plain-English summary

A member asked whether he could represent a client in a restoration-of-competency proceeding where he had previously represented her in a personal injury action but had been replaced by counsel selected by a subsequently appointed guardian.

The committee saw no objection to him representing the client in the restoration proceeding. The opinion stated its conclusion briefly and did not impose conditions.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1963, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. The opinion applied former Canon 7 of the Canons of Professional Ethics; the subject is now addressed by Rule 4-1.9 (duties to former clients) and Rule 4-1.7 (conflict of interest, current clients) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Model Rules 1.9 and 1.7). Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can a lawyer represent the same client again after being removed from an earlier case?

A: On these facts, yes. The committee saw no objection to the lawyer representing the client in a restoration-of-competency proceeding even though a subsequently appointed guardian had removed him as counsel in the client's earlier personal injury action.

Q: Did the guardian's removal of the lawyer bar him from later representing the client?

A: No. The opinion treated the prior removal by the guardian's chosen counsel as no obstacle to the lawyer's later representation of the client in the separate competency-restoration matter.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied former Canon 7 of the Canons of Professional Ethics. The duties a lawyer owes when representing a client after an earlier representation are now addressed by Rule 4-1.9 (duties to former clients) and, where the representation is ongoing, Rule 4-1.7 (conflicts among current clients) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (Model Rules 1.9 and 1.7). The matter arose in the context of a client whose competency was at issue, an area now governed by Rule 4-1.14 (client with diminished capacity).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canon 7 [Canons of Professional Ethics; see current Rules 4-1.9, 4-1.7]

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 63-31: Prosecuting a Partner's Ex-Client
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 85-4: Client With Diminished Capacity
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 21-3: Counsel in Emergency Guardianship

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-63-11/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-63-11.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 63-11
June 27, 1963
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
An attorney may represent a client in a restoration of competency where he had previously represented the client in a personal injury action but had been removed as counsel in that proceeding by a subsequently appointed guardian.
Canon: 7
Chairman Holcomb stated the opinion of the committee:
A member of The Florida Bar inquires whether he may represent a client in restoration of competency proceedings where he had previously represented her in a personal injury action, but had been replaced by counsel selected by a subsequently appointed guardian. We see no objection to him so representing the client.