Could counsel oppose former client Entity A on the same issue after a court decision changed the legal issues?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer had represented Entity A on an issue. Entity B asked the lawyer to litigate that issue against A after a statutory change and a recent court decision said the legal issues had completely changed. The lawyer held no confidential information from A usable against it.

The opinion allowed the B representation only if the decision establishing the changed issues was final. Opinion 930110 later said that an appealable decision did not satisfy this condition.

Currency note

This 1993 opinion predates Missouri's 2007 amendments to its Rules of Professional Conduct. An official reference note identifies July 1, 2007 amendments to Rules 4-1.9 and 4-1.10. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context and verify current rules before relying on it.

Common questions

Q: Was the court decision's finality important?

A: Yes. The opinion made representation conditional on a final decision.

Q: Did the lawyer have adverse-use information from A?

A: The question stated the lawyer did not.

Q: What did the follow-up say about an appealable decision?

A: Opinion 930110 said representation of B against A was then prohibited.

Background and rules framework

The opinion considered former-client adversity after a statutory change and a court decision, emphasizing finality and the absence of adverse-use confidential information. It cited no numbered rule.

See also

• Missouri Informal Op. 930110: Appealable decision follow-up
• Missouri Informal Op. 960248: Former client's adverse information

Source

• Landing page: https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/930109/

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION: Attorney represented Entity A in a previous case on this issue. Entity B now wants attorney to represent it on the same issue against Entity A. A recent court decision has ruled that a statutory change since the previous case has completely changed the legal issues. Attorney has no confidential information related to representation of Entity A which could be used to Entity A´s disadvantage in the case of B vs. A. ANSWER: Attorney may represent B in its litigation with A if the recent case which ruled that the issues are now completely changed is final.