Can one lawyer represent several clients subpoenaed before the same federal grand jury when the prosecutor may seek immunity for some and prosecute others?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer represented seven clients who had all been subpoenaed to appear before a federal grand jury investigating possible violations of 18 U.S.C. Sections 1952 and 2421. The United States Attorney indicated he intended to prosecute only some of the clients and might seek immunity for the others. The lawyer asked whether he could continue to represent all seven under those circumstances.

The committee answered in the negative. It reasoned that proper representation of any one client would of necessity include efforts to obtain immunity for that client. Seeking immunity for one of the seven would create an immediate conflict of interest as to all the others, so the lawyer could not continue the joint representation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1973, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. It addressed conflicts of interest under the standards in force at the time. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current Rule 4-1.7 before relying on any specific requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Why couldn't one lawyer represent all seven grand jury witnesses?

A: Under this opinion, properly representing any single client would mean trying to obtain immunity for that client, and that effort would conflict with the interests of the others the prosecutor intended to charge.

Q: Did the conflict depend on the prosecutor actually granting immunity?

A: No. The committee located the conflict in the lawyer's own duty to pursue immunity for a client, not in whether the United States Attorney ultimately granted it.

Background and rules framework

The opinion addressed a concurrent conflict of interest among co-clients in a single criminal investigation. In current Florida practice the conflict analysis corresponds to Rule 4-1.7 (conflict of interest, current clients); the Model Rule analogue is Rule 1.7. The underlying federal investigation concerned 18 U.S.C. Sections 1952 (interstate travel in aid of racketeering) and 2421 (transportation for prostitution).

Citations and references

Statutes:

• 18 U.S.C. Section 1952
• 18 U.S.C. Section 2421

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 72-48: Prosecutor and Partner as Appointed Defense Counsel
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 75-14: Part-Time Assistant State Attorney Conflict
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 76-11: Office-Sharing Public Defenders Holding Out as a Partnership

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-72-50/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-72-50-1.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 72-50
February 16, 1973
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
A lawyer may not represent multiple clients in the same criminal case if proper representation of any one of the clients would include efforts to obtain immunity.
Statute: 18 U.S.C. §§1952 and 2421
Vice Chairman Daniels stated the opinion of the committee:
A lawyer represents seven clients who have been subpoenaed to appear before a federal grand jury in connection with an investigation to determine whether someone has violated 18 U.S.C. Section 1952 or Section 2421. The United States Attorney has indicated that he only intends to prosecute some of the clients and may seek immunity for the others. The lawyer inquires as to whether he may continue to represent all seven clients under such circumstances. The question must be answered in the negative. Proper representation of any one client would of necessity include efforts to obtain immunity, creating an immediate conflict of interest as to all other clients.