Could one lawyer keep traffic and injury clients from the same incident if they consented?

Short answer Yes, at the negotiation stage after full disclosure and both clients' consent. If suit would put them on opposite sides, the lawyer had to withdraw from both unless both consented to continued representation of only one.

Bar

MOLEC

Issued

1994

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1994. Ask about yours and see what the current Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.

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

One lawyer represented Client A on a traffic ticket and Client B on an injury claim arising from the same facts. No suit had been filed, and settlement negotiations with the insurer were underway.

The opinion allowed both representations with each client's consent after full disclosure. If litigation later placed one client as plaintiff and the other as defendant, the lawyer had to withdraw from both unless both consented to the lawyer continuing for just one. It cited no numbered rule.

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: Could the lawyer continue both matters during settlement negotiations?

A: Yes, with full disclosure and consent from both clients.

Q: What if the clients became opposing parties in a lawsuit?

A: The lawyer had to withdraw from both, unless both consented to representation of only one.

Background and rules framework

The opinion distinguished prefiling dual representation from litigation placing the clients on opposite sides and made consent the deciding condition. It cited no numbered rule.

Source

Landing page: https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/940202/

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION: Attorney represents Client A on a traffic ticket and Client B on a personal injury matter. Attorney now learns that the two matters arise out of the same facts. If A and B consent after full disclosure, may Attorney continue to represent both? At this point no suit has been filed and Attorney has been negotiating settlement with the insurance company. ANSWER: If A and B consent after full disclosure, Attorney may continue to represent both. However, if it becomes necessary to file a suit in which one client is the plaintiff and the other is the defendant, Attorney must withdraw from representing both unless both consent to Attorney continuing to represent only one.

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1994. 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