If one partner in a firm represents a client in a divorce, can another partner in the same firm sue that client in an unrelated matter?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1985. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The committee was asked whether, when one partner of a law firm represents a person in a dissolution-of-marriage proceeding, another partner of the same firm may sue that represented person in a different legal proceeding. It answered no.
The committee grounded the answer in the duty of loyalty. Citing the commentary to Rule 1.7, it explained that loyalty to a client prohibits a lawyer from undertaking representation directly adverse to that client without the client's consent. Because lawyers in a firm are treated as one, if one attorney in a firm represents a client in an ongoing matter, no other attorney in that firm may sue that same client, even in a completely unrelated matter. The committee pointed to the rationale behind the former Disciplinary Rule DR 5-105(A) (no longer in effect in Montana): the first attorney's independent professional judgment could be adversely affected by knowing that a partner has sued the client, presumably on a meritorious claim.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1985, before the State Bar of Montana's adoption of the 2004 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.
Common questions
Q: Can a firm sue a current client in a matter unrelated to the firm's representation?
A: No. The opinion concluded that if one lawyer in the firm represents the client in an ongoing matter, no other lawyer in the firm may sue that client even in a completely unrelated matter, absent the client's consent.
Q: Why does one partner's representation disqualify the whole firm?
A: The opinion treats the firm's lawyers as one for loyalty purposes and reasons that the representing lawyer's independent professional judgment could be adversely affected by knowing a partner has sued the client.
Q: Could the client's consent change the result?
A: The opinion frames the bar as flowing from loyalty, which the Rule 1.7 commentary says prohibits directly adverse representation "without that client's consent," implying consent is the avenue the rule contemplates.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets Montana Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7 (Conflict of Interest: General Rule; Model Rule 1.7) and its commentary on the duty of loyalty, and refers to the rationale of the former Model Code provision DR 5-105(A), which is no longer in effect in Montana.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Mont. R. Prof. Cond. 1.7 (conflict of interest: general rule; duty of loyalty) / Model Rule 1.7
See also
- State Bar of Montana Ethics Op. 890317: Simultaneous Representation by an Attorney
- State Bar of Montana Ethics Op. 860218: Simultaneous Representation in a Wrongful-Death Matter
- State Bar of Montana Ethics Op. 951026: Former-Client Firm Conflict of Interest
Source
- Landing page: https://www.montanabar.org/For-Attorneys/State-Bar-Resources/Ethics-Opinions
- Original PDF: https://www.montanabar.org/Portals/MONTANA/850916%20oppos%20in%20dissol.pdf
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Ethics Opinion
QUESTION PRESENTED: When one Partner of a law firm represents a person in a dissolution of marriage proceeding, may another Partner of the same firm sue the represented person in another legal proceeding?
ANSWER: No.
ANALYSIS: Representation requires loyalty. Rule 1.7 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, in the commentary thereof, states that loyalty to a client prohibits undertaking representation directly adverse to that client without that client's consent. If one attorney in a firm represents a client in an on-going matter, then no other attorney can sue that same client even if in a completely unrelated matter. The rationale is contained in the Disciplinary Rules DR 5-105 (A) (no longer in effect in Montana) in that the "independent professional judgment" of the first attorney could be adversely affected by the knowledge that his partner has sued his client, presumably meritoriously.
THIS OPINION IS ADVISORY ONLY
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1985 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.