Ezel / Ethics Opinions / MBAR
MBAR January 26, 2017

Can a lawyer represent a second client against a defendant the lawyer is already suing for a different client?

Short answer: It depends on the facts. The lawyer must evaluate whether confidentiality or conflict problems exist under Rule 1.7 and discuss them with both clients before taking on the second representation; if either will not consent where a real conflict exists, the lawyer cannot proceed.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2017. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 2017
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

A lawyer already representing Client A in a debt-collection suit against party X asked whether he could also represent a new Client B, who would be both a defendant and a counterclaimant against X. The opinion frames the question under Rule 1.7 and concludes the answer turns on the factual circumstances of each situation.

The opinion acknowledges that lawyers often represent several plaintiffs against the same defendant, sometimes on different claims, but says disqualifying conflicts can still arise at the outset or later. It identifies specific risk patterns: confidential information from one client that would be useful to the other but that the source does not want disclosed, confidential information from one that is detrimental to the other, and differing case strengths that complicate settlement. It also flags the adequacy of the defendant's assets to satisfy both claims, noting that in some configurations Client A could recover from X only if X prevails against Client B.

Where the lawyer perceives such a problem, the opinion says he must discuss the implications with both Client A and prospective Client B before undertaking B's representation, and that if either will not consent in those circumstances, the lawyer cannot take the additional matter. If the lawyer does represent multiple clients and settlement arises, the opinion directs attention to Rule 1.8(g) on aggregate settlements. The committee stresses that the lawyer, not the committee, is better positioned to judge whether the facts present minor or major conflict risks because the analysis is fact-specific.

In practice

Under this opinion, conduct in which a lawyer takes on a second client against a defendant the lawyer already opposes for another client is permitted only after the lawyer evaluates the specific Rule 1.7 risks the opinion lists and, where a real conflict appears, discusses it with both clients and obtains the consent Rule 1.7(b) requires. The opinion identifies shared or adverse confidential information, divergent case strength affecting settlement, and limited defendant assets as the factors that can convert a common situation into a disqualifying conflict.

The opinion holds that if either client will not consent where such a conflict exists, the lawyer cannot undertake the second representation, and that where multiple representation proceeds to settlement, Rule 1.8(g)'s aggregate-settlement requirements apply.

Common questions

Q: Is it automatically a conflict to sue the same defendant for two clients?

A: No. The opinion notes lawyers often represent multiple plaintiffs against one defendant, but concludes that whether a disqualifying conflict exists is fact-specific under Rule 1.7 and must be assessed case by case.

Q: What kinds of facts create a real conflict here?

A: The opinion lists confidential information from one client useful or detrimental to the other, differing case strengths that complicate settlement, and a defendant whose assets may be inadequate to satisfy both claims.

Q: What happens at settlement if the lawyer does represent both?

A: The opinion directs the lawyer to Rule 1.8(g), which governs aggregate settlements of multiple clients' claims.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Massachusetts Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7 (concurrent conflicts of interest), including Comments 3 and 4, and points to Rule 1.8(g) (aggregate settlements) for the settlement stage. These track the like-numbered ABA Model Rules. The committee treats the second client as a prospective client whose intake requires a conflict assessment before the representation begins.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • MR 1.7 / Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.7 (concurrent conflicts of interest; Comments 3 and 4)
  • MR 1.8 / Mass. R. Prof. C. 1.8(g) (aggregate settlements)

See also

Source

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 2017 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.