Did a limited pro forma filing for a former client bar a later similar case that would harm that client?

Short answer Yes. The opinion found a Rule 4-1.9(a) conflict even though the earlier work was minimal; the former client could waive it after full disclosure.

Bar

MOLEC

Issued

1995

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1995. 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

A lawyer had briefly represented Client A to make a pro forma filing before other counsel took over. A new client sought representation in a similar proceeding that would seek a ruling adverse to Client A in the earlier matter.

The opinion found a conflict under Rule 4-1.9(a). It said Client A could waive the conflict after full disclosure.

Currency note

This 1995 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: Did the minimal scope of the first representation avoid a conflict?

A: No. The opinion found a Rule 4-1.9(a) conflict on the stated facts.

Q: Could the conflict be waived?

A: Yes, by the former client after full disclosure.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Missouri Rule 4-1.9(a) where a new proceeding would seek a ruling adverse to a client for whom the lawyer had earlier made a pro forma filing.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

Missouri Rule 4-1.9(a)

Source

Landing page: https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/950073/

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION: Attorney represented client A in a minimal manner in a proceeding in order to accomplish a pro forma filing. Subsequently client A was represented by other counsel in the proceeding. Client B is now requesting representation by Attorney in a similar proceeding. If Attorney represents client B, Attorney will seek a ruling that will have an adverse impact on client A in the matter in which Attorney previously represented client A. Is this a conflict? Can it be waived? ANSWER: Yes, it is a conflict under Rule 4–1.9(a). The conflict can be waived by client A after full disclosure.

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1995. 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