Must a lawyer drop a long-time client when the opposing party joins a group that the lawyer's partner represents in a completely unrelated matter?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney had represented an ex-wife for eight years in proceedings following a complex dissolution of marriage. Separately, one of the attorney's partners was asked to help represent a group of property owners challenging a proposed municipal ordinance requiring fire-detection devices. The ex-husband, whose rental properties would be affected, announced he would join that group and argued that, as a result, the inquiring attorney should stop representing the ex-wife. The ex-wife had limited resources and would be severely prejudiced if forced to obtain new counsel.

The attorney represented that the issues in the property-owners matter were entirely unrelated to the post-dissolution proceedings and that the ex-husband would not have to disclose anything pertinent to the dissolution. The committee did not believe the ex-husband's membership in a property-owners association challenging an ordinance could conceivably affect the independent professional judgment of the attorney or the partner, in either matter.

The committee noted the attorney had never represented the husband, so there was no inherent conflict, and concluded that, based on the attorney's assurance that the two matters were entirely unrelated, continued representation was proper after disclosure to and consent by the ex-wife. The committee added that the Code is not intended to let the ex-husband manufacture a conflict for an attorney who had long represented his ex-wife simply by joining an organization the partner represents in a separate matter.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1985, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Must the lawyer withdraw because the opposing party joined a group the partner represents?

A: The opinion concluded the lawyer is not obligated to withdraw, where the two matters are entirely unrelated and the lawyer never represented the opposing party.

Q: What made continued representation proper?

A: The opinion concluded that, given the attorney's assurance that the matters were entirely unrelated, continued representation was proper after disclosure to and consent by the existing client.

Q: Can an opposing party create a conflict by joining a group the firm represents?

A: The opinion concluded the Code is not intended to enable a party to manufacture a conflict for an attorney by joining an organization the attorney's partner represents in a separate matter.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets the conflict-of-interest principles of CPR Canon 5, which correspond to Model Rule 1.7 (concurrent conflicts of interest) and its requirement of client consent after disclosure where representation may be materially affected.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• CPR Canon 5 (independent professional judgment; conflicts of interest)

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 87-1: Multiple Representation of Codefendants
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 02-3: Joint Representation of Driver and Passenger

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-85-1/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-85-1-1.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 85-1
June 1, 1985
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.

An attorney representing an ex-wife in post-dissolution-of-marriage proceedings is not obligated to withdraw when the ex-husband joins a group of property owners represented by the attorney's partner in an unrelated matter involving a municipal ordinance.

CPR: Canon 5

Chairman Mead stated the opinion of the committee:

The inquiring attorney has represented an ex-wife over a period of eight years in connection with proceedings subsequent to a dissolution of marriage. The case is unusually complex due to the ex-husband's wealth. Presently pending are motions for contempt, for interpretations of the settlement agreement, the ex-wife's right to be reimbursed for maintenance of the residence, etc.

A group of property owners has retained a third party lawyer for representation in connection with possible litigation involving the validity of a proposed municipal ordinance that would require owners of large residential properties to install fire detection devices. One of the inquiring attorney's partners has now been consulted by this lawyer and asked to assist in representing the property owners in the above case. The ex-husband, whose holdings include rental properties that would be affected by the ordinance, has announced his intention to join the group in challenging the ordinance and he has suggested that, as a result of his membership in this group, the inquiring attorney should cease his representation of the ex-wife. It appears that the ex-wife has limited resources and would be severely prejudiced if required to obtain new counsel.

The attorney states that the issues involved in the representation of the property owners in no way relate to any issues in the post-dissolution proceedings, nor will the ex-husband be required to disclose any information to the attorneys in the proposed litigation which would be pertinent to the post-dissolution proceedings. The attorney asks whether he may continue to represent the ex-wife.

We do not believe that the ex-husband's membership in a property owners association that is challenging a municipal ordinance could conceivably affect the attorney's independent professional judgment (or that of his partner) either with regard to the property owners' representation or in connection with the representation of the ex-wife.

The inquiring attorney has never represented the husband, so there is no inherent conflict of interest in representing the ex-wife. Based upon the attorney's assurance that the issues in the two matters are entirely unrelated, we see nothing wrong with his continued representation after disclosure to and consent by the ex-wife. In our view the Code of Professional Responsibility is not intended to enable the ex-husband to intentionally create a conflict situation for an attorney who has represented his ex-wife for so long a period of time, simply by joining an organization that one of his partners represents in an entirely separate matter.