Could a lawyer represent a client against the client of an attorney sharing office space?

Plain-English summary

One attorney had represented a wife on a modification motion; the lawyer sharing that attorney's office had represented the husband. The wife sought a contempt motion against the husband, and the office sharer would not represent him in it.

The opinion permitted the wife's lawyer to act if the two practices truly shared only space and expenses. It described separate file and client-information access, instructions to joint employees, and separate signage and advertising as necessary to maintain that status. If the practices were not kept separate, each attorney had to treat the other's conflicts as their own, so the wife's representation would require the husband's consent.

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 sharing office space itself bar the wife's representation?

A: No. The opinion allowed it if the practices were truly limited to sharing space and expenses and maintained the stated separation.

Q: What did the opinion say about shared employees?

A: They should be clearly told that the offices were separate and that information about one attorney's clients should not be shared with the other.

Q: What if the offices failed to stay separate?

A: The opinion treated each attorney's conflicts as the other's and said the wife's representation would require the husband's consent.

Background and rules framework

The opinion distinguished office sharing from a combined practice by client-information barriers, employee instructions, and separate public presentation. It cited no numbered rule.

See also

• Missouri Informal Op. 970007: Office sharing and prospective client conflict
• Missouri Informal Op. 960219: Shared CPA office and staff confidentiality

Source

• Landing page: https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/950169/

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION: Attorney represented W on a motion to modify. Attorney A represented H. Attorney and Attorney A now share office space and expenses but are not partners. W needs to file a motion for contempt against H. Attorney A will not represent H. ANSWER: If Attorney and Attorney A are truly only sharing office space and expenses, Attorney may represent W. In order for the relationship to be solely office sharing, confidentiality must be maintained so that employees of one attorney do not have access to the files and client information of the other attorney. To the extent that any employees are joint employees, they should be clearly instructed on the fact that the offices are separate and information about one attorney´s clients should not be shared with the other. The two practices should appear separate through signage and advertising. Although the space is shared, the overall arrangement should make the separateness of the practices clear. If the two practices are not kept separate as described, each should consider the conflicts of one to be the conflicts of both. Therefore, Attorney would not be able to represent W without the consent of H.