Can a legal services program represent clients with conflicting interests by assigning different lawyers or separate offices?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer who served on the board of directors of a federally funded (Office of Economic Opportunity) legal services program asked whether the program could represent two or more persons with conflicting interests, and whether the answer changed if separate "law offices" within the program, or different attorneys in the same office, handled the matters.

The committee held that, absent consent under the former Canon 6, the program could not represent conflicting interests, and that the result did not change whether different lawyers or different "law offices" within the program were used. The committee reasoned that the program, like the one described in its earlier Opinion 66-56, was managed by a single executive reporting to a single board, with some commingling of records at a central point and the ordinary interchange of information typical of a large law firm. The committee added that any consent of the kind Canon 6 allowed had to be obtained with extreme caution given the program's clientele, and that any doubt had to be resolved against the representation. It suggested that conflicts be referred to existing legal aid programs or lawyer referral services, or, failing that, that the program apply to the appropriate court for instructions.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in January 1968, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. It applied the former Canon 6 on representing conflicting interests. Conflicts of interest are now governed by Rule 4-1.7 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, with imputation of conflicts within a firm addressed by Rule 4-1.10 (Model Rules 1.7 and 1.10). 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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. The opinion it relied on, 66-56, has since been withdrawn.

Common questions

Q: Can a legal aid or legal services program take both sides of a dispute if it assigns separate lawyers?

A: Under this opinion, no, absent client consent. The committee treated the program as a single firm because it was run by one executive and board with shared records, so assigning different lawyers or separate "law offices" did not cure the conflict.

Q: Could client consent solve the problem?

A: The committee said consent under the former Canon 6 was possible but had to be procured with extreme caution given the program's clientele, and that any doubt had to be resolved against the representation.

Q: What did the committee suggest when a conflict arose?

A: It suggested referring the matter to existing legal aid programs or lawyer referral services, or, if no such help was available, applying to the appropriate court for instructions.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied the former Canon 6, which governed the representation of conflicting interests. That subject is now addressed by Rule 4-1.7 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar (concurrent conflicts of interest), with the imputation of one lawyer's conflicts to others in the same firm governed by Rule 4-1.10. The Model Rule analogues are Rules 1.7 and 1.10.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Canon 6 [Canons of Professional Ethics; representing conflicting interests]

Other opinions cited:

• Florida Opinion 66-56 (since withdrawn)

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 68-2: Legal Services Program Referral Versus Handoff
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 70-48: ACLU and Group Legal Services

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-67-37/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-67-37.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 67-37
January 8, 1968
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
Absent consent of the clients, it would not be proper for legal services program to represent conflicting interests, whether different lawyers provided the representation or whether different "law offices" were involved.
Canon: 6
Opinion: 66-56
Chairman MacDonald stated the opinion of the committee:
A lawyer member of the Board of Directors of South Florida Migrant Legal Services Program, Inc., an organization funded by the Office of Economic Opportunity for the dispensing of legal services, and presumably similar to Law, Inc. of Hillsborough County, described in our Opinion 66-56 [since withdrawn], inquires whether the entity may properly represent two or more persons possessing conflicting interests. We are further asked whether the answer to the basic inquiry would differ if it were assumed that separate "law offices" operated in the program would represent the individuals in question, or different attorneys in the same law office would represent them.
Canon 6 describes the obligations of lawyers with reference to the representation of conflicting interests. As set forth at length in our 66-56, the Canons are fully operative upon the individual lawyers dispensing legal services for OEO programs. It is our judgment that, absent consent as prescribed in Canon 6, it would not be proper for this OEO program to provide representation of conflicting interests, whether different lawyers provided the representation, or whether different "law offices" were involved. It is manifest that this program, like the one described in 66-56, is managed by a single executive reporting to a single board. Presumably there is at least some commingling of records at a central point and there is the ordinary interchange of information between attorneys typical of any large law firm. Thus in our judgment it would be entirely inappropriate to permit such representation.
We underline that the type of clientele to whom services of this program are dispensed are such that any consent to such representation as described in Canon 6 must be procured with extreme caution, and that any doubt whatever must be resolved against the representation. Hopefully, the incidence of potential conflicts will not be great. In the event that such conflicts develop it is to be hoped that legal aid programs or lawyer referral services already existent in the county would provide the necessary volunteer representation. In the event that this type aid is not available it is suggested that application be made to the appropriate court for instructions.