May a Missouri lawyer keep representing two siblings after a joint partition representation becomes directly adverse?

Plain-English summary

The lawyer initially represented three siblings who shared the objective of partitioning a family farm equally. One sibling later sought a larger share, while the other two wanted a sale and equal division of the proceeds.

Those changed objectives made the clients directly adverse under Rule 4-1.7(a). Comment [29] states that a lawyer ordinarily must withdraw from all clients when a common representation fails.

The lawyer could not solve the conflict by dropping the sibling seeking a larger share and continuing for the other two. Rule 4-1.9 duties to that sibling as a former client would prevent the lawyer from continuing against that sibling. Because continued representation would violate Rule 4-1.7, Rule 4-1.16(a) requires withdrawal from all three matters.

The lawyer must seek the court's permission to withdraw under Rule 4-1.16(c), stating that professional considerations require termination, and must assist each client on withdrawal as Rule 4-1.16(d) provides.

In practice

Under this opinion, a common representation that becomes direct adversity requires withdrawal from every jointly represented sibling. Ending one representation first does not permit the lawyer to proceed against that former client when Rule 4-1.9 duties still apply.

Common questions

Q: Why did the joint representation become conflicted?

A: The clients no longer shared an objective. One wanted a larger share of the farm, while the other two opposed that request and wanted a sale with equal proceeds.

Q: May the lawyer withdraw from one sibling and continue for the other two?

A: No. The opinion says Rule 4-1.9 duties to the departed client would prevent the lawyer from continuing for the remaining siblings.

Q: Must the lawyer withdraw from all three clients?

A: Yes. Continued representation would violate Rule 4-1.7, making withdrawal mandatory under Rule 4-1.16(a).

Q: What must the lawyer tell the court?

A: In seeking permission to withdraw under Rule 4-1.16(c), the lawyer should state that professional considerations require termination of the representation.

Background and rules framework

Rule 4-1.7(a) governs direct adversity among current clients. Rule 4-1.9 supplies the duties owed if one jointly represented client becomes a former client. Rules 4-1.16(a), (c), and (d) govern mandatory withdrawal, court permission, and assistance to clients after withdrawal.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Missouri Rules 4-1.7(a), 4-1.9, 4-1.16(a), 4-1.16(c), and 4-1.16(d)
• Missouri Rule 4-1.7 Comments [4], [5], and [29]
• Missouri Rule 4-1.16 Comment [3]

See also

• Colorado Ethics Op. 135: Joint Representation and Confidentiality
• Missouri Informal Op. 2026-01: Driver-Passenger Joint Representation
• Nebraska Ethics Op. 10-05: Driver-Passenger Joint Representation

Source

• Landing page: Missouri Informal Opinion 2021-04

Original opinion text

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

Question: Attorney represents three siblings as clients in a pending partition action of a parcel, a family farm, subject to distribution from the estate of siblings’ surviving parent. Originally, all three clients wanted the parcel partitioned equally so each could own a portion of the farm for their individual purposes. Attorney accepted the representations of Clients A, B, and C in the partition action. Client B has now decided to pursue a greater share and has asked Attorney to assist in this action. Clients A and C are opposed to Client B’s request for a greater share and now want the parcel to be sold and proceeds divided equally between A, B, and C. Should Attorney withdraw from the representation of any of Clients A, B, and C, or may Attorney proceed with representing Clients A and C?

Answer: Attorney is required to withdraw from representing Clients A, B, and C. When Attorney accepted the representation of Clients A, B, and C, all three clients wanted the parcel partitioned equally. Now, the objectives of Clients A, B, and C have changed, making their positions directly adverse pursuant to Rule 4–1.7(a). Comment [29] to Rule 4–1.7 provides guidance that a lawyer is “[o]rdinarily…forced to withdraw from representing all of the clients if the common representation fails.” Further, Comment [4] to Rule 4–1.7 provides additional guidance and states: “…whether the lawyer may continue to represent any of the clients is determined both by the lawyer’s ability to comply with duties owed to the former client and by the lawyer’s ability to represent adequately the remaining client or clients, given the lawyer’s duties to the former client. See Rule 4–1.9. See also Comments [5] and [29].” If Attorney withdraws from representing B, Attorney still cannot continue to represent Clients A and C because Attorney would be unable to comply with Rule 4–1.9 as it would relate to Client B as a former client. Continued representation of Clients A, B, or C would result in a violation of Rule 4–1.7, so Attorney is required to withdraw pursuant to Rule 4–1.16(a). Attorney must seek permission of the court to withdraw from the representation in accordance with Rule 4–1.16(c) by informing the court that professional considerations require termination of the representation Rule 4–1.16(c), Comment [3], and assist Clients A, B, and C upon withdrawal as provided in Rule 4–1.16(d).