When could a firm represent a driver and employer, or an employer and employee on unrelated matters?

Plain-English summary

One scenario involved an accident defendant and the driver's employer, later added as defendant, with possible divergent interests. The other involved a firm representing an employer in a workers compensation case and the employee in an unrelated accident case.

For the first, the opinion allowed joint counsel after full disclosure and independent consent from each defendant, but required withdrawal from both if an actual conflict developed. For the second, the firm could not continue both without both clients' consent under Rule 1.7(a). If not representing both with consent, Rule 1.9 governed later work for either, subject to not having confidential information from the other that could be used adversely.

Currency note

This 1994 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: What did joint driver-employer counsel require?

A: Full disclosure and each defendant's independent consent; an actual conflict required withdrawal from both.

Q: Could the firm represent employer and employee in separate cases without consent?

A: No. The opinion required both clients' consent under Rule 1.7(a).

Q: What governed representation of just one after the concurrent arrangement ended?

A: The opinion pointed to Rule 1.9 and confidential information from the other client.

Background and rules framework

The opinion considered two separate concurrent-client settings and cited Rules 1.7(a) and 1.9 in the employer-employee setting.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Missouri Rule 1.7(a)
• Missouri Rule 1.9

See also

• Missouri Informal Op. 940053: Driver-passenger joint counsel
• Missouri Informal Op. 970181: Driver-passenger-child waivers

Source

• Landing page: https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/940012/

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION: Fact Situation 1: Attorney represents a defendant who was the driver in an auto accident. The suit has been amended to include the driver´s employer as a defendant. The possibility exists that the driver and the employer´s interests will diverge. May Attorney represent both at this point? Fact Situation 2: Attorney´s firm represents an employer in a workers compensation case. Attorney´s firm also accepted the same employee as a client in an auto accident case totally unrelated to the workers compensation suit. May the firm continue representation in either or both cases? ANSWER: Fact Situation 1: Yes, if each defendant is given full disclosure and each independently consents to the joint representation. If an actual conflict develops, Attorney will have to withdraw from representing both. Fact Situation 2: Attorney´s firm may not continue in both cases unless both clients consent under Rule 1.7(a). If the firm does not represent both clients with their consent, the situation would be governed by Rule 1.9. The firm could represent either as long as members of the firm did not obtain confidential information from the other client which could be used to the other client´s disadvantage in the representation.