Can a lawyer who once represented an estate's administrator later sue an heir's share in that same, still-open estate for a creditor?

Plain-English summary

The Board was asked about a lawyer, "B," who in 1929 represented an administrator in instituting probate proceedings and withdrew several months later. A creditor of one of the heirs now wished to collect a debt by proceeding against the heir's contingent share in the estate, and wanted to employ B; the probate proceedings had never been concluded.

The Board concluded that there is nothing in Rule 8 of the Rules of Professional Conduct that would render improper B's acceptance of the employment, and that it saw no reason why B should not accept it.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1936, decades before Oklahoma replaced its original Rules of Professional Conduct (patterned on the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics) with the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (adopted 1988) and the later Ethics 2000 revisions. The analysis of former-client and adverse-representation conflicts has been restructured in the modern rules. Subsequent rule amendments and 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Could the lawyer take a matter adverse to an heir in the same estate he once worked on?

A: Yes. The opinion held that, having represented only the administrator briefly and then withdrawn, B could accept the creditor's employment against an heir's share; nothing in Rule 8 forbade it.

Q: Did the probate still being open change the answer?

A: No. The Board noted the proceedings had never concluded but still saw no reason B should not accept the employment.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted Rule 8 of the canon-era Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, concerning a lawyer's representation against a former client's interests, and found no bar on the facts presented. It predates the Model Rules and made no Model Rule citation.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Rule 8 (1929 Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct): concerning representation adverse to a former client; the Board found nothing in it to bar the proposed employment here.

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 113: Switching sides in a school-district dispute
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 93: Defending a codefendant against a former client

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-130/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted December 28, 1936

The Board is in receipt of the following inquiry:

"In 1929, attorney 'B' represented an administrator in the institution of probate proceedings. Several months later 'B' withdrew as attorney for the administrator. A creditor of one of the heirs now wishes to collect a debt owed to him by the heir by proceedings against the heir's contingent share in the estate, and desires to employ 'B'. The probate proceedings have never been concluded.

Would it be proper for 'B' to accept the employment under the circumstances as above set forth?"

In response:

There is nothing in Rule 8 of the Rules of Professional Conduct which would render improper the acceptance of the employment by "B", nor is it thought that there is any reason why "B" should not accept the employment.