After withdrawing from an estate's administrator who defies a distribution order, can the lawyer represent the other heirs against that former-client administrator?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry asked whether a conflict of interest arises under Canon 6 when the heirs of an estate want to be represented by the same attorney who previously represented the estate's administrator, where the administrator (himself an heir, age 80) refuses to comply with an order directing distribution and the other heirs are considering partition proceedings against him. The administrator believed the entire estate belonged to him and refused to sign distribution checks or execute a deed; the other heirs, fully advised, wanted the inquirer to represent them in compelling distribution.

The Committee held that Canons 16 and 44 controlled the first part of the problem: because the administrator-client refused to obey the lawful court order and disregarded the inquirer's instructions, sufficient grounds existed for the inquirer to withdraw from representing the administrator on application to the court, and the court could adjust any allowances already made in its order permitting withdrawal.

On the second part, the Committee concluded that after withdrawing the inquirer should not represent any of the other heirs in any action against his former client, the administrator, citing Canon 6.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in May 1969, before New Jersey's September 13, 1971 adoption of the Disciplinary Rules (Code of Professional Responsibility), so the Committee was applying the Canons of Professional Ethics (Canons 6, 16, 44) and its own prior opinions. It also predates the 1984 Rules of Professional Conduct and all later revisions. Withdrawal is now governed by RPC 1.16 and the duty to former clients by RPC 1.9. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer withdraw when the client (an estate administrator) defies a court order?

A: Yes. The Committee held that the administrator's refusal to obey the court's distribution order and the lawyer's instructions established sufficient grounds for the lawyer to withdraw on application to the court.

Q: After withdrawing, can the lawyer take the other heirs' side against the former-client administrator?

A: No. The Committee concluded that, after withdrawal, the lawyer should not represent any of the other heirs in any action against his former client, the administrator.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Canons 16 and 44 (grounds for withdrawal) and Canon 6 (former-client conflict) of the Canons of Professional Ethics to a lawyer caught between an obstinate administrator-client and the other heirs. In current New Jersey terms, withdrawal is governed by RPC 1.16 and the duty to a former client by RPC 1.9.

Citations and references

Other authorities:

• Canons of Professional Ethics, Canons 6, 16, 44

See also

• NJ ACPE Op. 154: Suing a Former Client in an Unrelated Matter
• NJ ACPE Op. 158: Suing a Former Client in a Wholly Unrelated Matter
• NJ ACPE Op. 211: Action Against a Former Corporate Client

Source

• Full text (Justia mirror): https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/advisory-committee-on-professional-ethics/2004/acp153-1.html
• Issuing authority: New Jersey Supreme Court Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics, via the NJ Courts Supreme Court Committees page

Original opinion text

Reproduced from a full-text mirror of the official opinion for research purposes. The linked official source controls.

92 N.J.L.J. 338, May 22, 1969

OPINION 153

Conflict of Interest Representing Heirs Against Former Client Administrator

The Committee has the following inquiry:

Is a conflict of interest involved under Canons of Professional Ethics, Canon 6 when the heirs of an estate desire representation by the same attorney who previously represented the administrator of the same estate, when the administrator, being also an heir of the estate, refuses to comply with an order directing distribution of the estate, and subsequent possible partition proceedings are being considered by the remainder of the heirs against the other heir, the former administrator?

In addition to the question set forth in the inquiry, the inquirer advises the Committee that the administrator is 80 years of age and believes that the entire estate belongs to him and therefore refuses to sign any checks to accomplish distribution or execute a deed to convey the real property, and that all of the other heirs, being fully advised of the situation, insist that the inquirer represent them in compelling the administrator to complete the distribution of the estate.

It is this Committee's opinion that Canons of Professional Ethics, Canons 16 and 44 are controlling. If the inquirer's client, as administrator of the estate, refuses to obey the lawful order of the court and disobeys the instructions of the inquirer with respect thereto, sufficient grounds are established for the inquirer to withdraw from further representation of the administrator of the estate on application to the court. Any adjustments in allowances already made to the inquirer may be directed by the court in its order permitting withdrawal.

It is the further opinion of this Committee that after the inquirer's withdrawal he should not represent any of the other heirs of this estate in any action against his former client as administrator. See Canon 6.