Ezel / Ethics Opinions / MOLEC

May an estate-planning lawyer represent the public administrator appointed for a former client?

Short answer Yes on the stated facts. The opinion says Rule 4-1.9 does not bar representation because the administrator’s interests are not materially adverse to the former estate-planning client.
Bar
MOLEC
Issued
2011

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2011. Ask about yours and see what the current Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 2011
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.
How much weight this carries: Under Missouri Supreme Court Rule 5.30, formal opinions are binding; informal opinions are advisory. Source.
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

The lawyer had prepared estate-planning documents for a client and later considered representing that client’s public administrator as guardian and conservator. Another lawyer represented the client in the guardianship matter, and no issue had been raised about the client’s competence during the earlier estate work.

The opinion answers yes because the administrator’s interests are not materially adverse to the former client’s interests. On those facts, Rule 4-1.9 does not prohibit the new representation.

In practice

The opinion’s approval rests on the stated lack of material adversity between the public administrator and the former estate-planning client.

Common questions

Q: Does Rule 4-1.9 bar this conservator representation?

A: No, because the opinion finds no material adversity to the former client on the stated facts.

Q: Was the former client’s competence during estate planning disputed?

A: No. The question expressly states that no such issue existed.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rule 4-1.9 to the former-client relationship and bases its answer on the absence of materially adverse interests.

Citations and references

Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Rule 4-1.9

See also

Source

Original opinion text

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

Question: May Attorney represent the public administrator as guardian and conservator of Attorney’s former estate planning Client, where Client was represented by another attorney in the guardianship/conservatorship action, and where there is no issue as to Client’s competency to have engaged in the estate planning for which Attorney represented Client?

Answer: Yes. Because the interests of the public administrator are not materially adverse to the interests of Client, Rule 4–1.9 does not prohibit the representation.

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 2011. Ezel checks the current Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace