What must a firm determine before representing a client against a spouse previously represented by a partner?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer wanted to represent a client seeking modification against an ex-husband whom a partner had represented in an incorporation matter.

The opinion directed an inquiry under Rule 4-1.9(b) into whether any firm member obtained confidential information in the earlier representation that could disadvantage the former client in the new matter. It said confidentiality under Rule 4-1.6 was broader than attorney-client privilege and included information any firm member received because of the prior representation. It did not give an unconditional yes or no to the proposed representation.

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 different subject matter resolve the issue automatically?

A: No. The opinion required an inquiry into confidential information that could be used to the former client's detriment.

Q: Which firm's knowledge mattered?

A: Information obtained by any member of the firm through the previous representation.

Q: Was confidentiality limited to privileged communications?

A: No. The opinion said Rule 4-1.6 confidentiality was much broader than the statutory evidentiary privilege.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Missouri Rules 4-1.9(b) and 4-1.6 to a former-client conflict question involving a partner's earlier representation of an adverse spouse. It described the scope of confidential information but left the factual determination to the firm.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Missouri Rule 4-1.9(b)
• Missouri Rule 4-1.6

See also

• Missouri Informal Op. 950174: Former firm prenup conflict
• Missouri Informal Op. 970226: Former divorce client confidentiality

Source

• Landing page: https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/950123/

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION: Attorney´s client is seeking representation in a motion to modify. One of Attorney´s partners previously represented the client´s ex-husband in an incorporation matter. May Attorney represent the current client in the motion to modify? ANSWER: Under Rule 4–1.9(b), Attorney must determine whether any member of the firm obtained confidential information in the course of the previous representation that could be used to the previous client´s detriment in the current case. Confidentiality under Rule 4–1.6 is much broader than the attorney-client privilege which is a statutory evidentiary rule. Any information which came into the possession of any member of the firm as a result of the previous representation would be included under the ambit of confidential information.