Can one lawyer represent both the driver and the passengers of the same car in injury claims against the other driver?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer is asked to represent both the driver and the passengers of the same vehicle in personal-injury and property-damage claims against the adverse driver. The opinion addresses three scenarios: whether the lawyer may represent both if the driver's liability for any passenger injury is in question, whether the lawyer may do so if the passengers merely make PIP claims against the driver's insurance, and whether the lawyer may do so if the adverse driver's aggregate assets are insufficient to cover all claims. The conclusions are no (qualified), yes, and no (qualified).

The opinion applies Oregon RPC 1.7 (current-client conflicts) and Oregon RPC 1.8(g) (aggregate settlements), with the Oregon RPC 1.0 definitions, and sets out a five-step conflict analysis (identify clients; determine adversity or other conflict; determine waivability; obtain waivers or decline; monitor during the representation). On the driver's liability, if the driver has no liability for the passengers' injuries there is no conflict; but a contributory-fault defense raised by the adverse driver, or discovered during the case, may create a nonwaivable conflict that bars simultaneous representation, requiring the lawyer to stop representing both unless one side agrees to become a former client and consents to continued representation of the other. The mere allegation of the driver's contributory fault does not necessarily create a nonwaivable conflict, for example where the passengers voluntarily decline to pursue intrafamily claims, but the lawyer should still consider the issue and obtain any necessary consent.

On PIP claims, the opinion finds no conflict, because PIP benefits are per capita rather than aggregate and are not based on the driver's fault (ORS 742.520; ORS 742.524). On insufficient resources, there is no conflict if the lawyer knows the available resources are adequate for all claims; if an aggregate settlement is offered, the requirements of Oregon RPC 1.8(g) must be met (the opinion cites In re Gatti for the definition of a non-class aggregate settlement). If resources later become inadequate, the lawyer may continue only if all clients consent, after full disclosure, to limit the representation to collecting all possible resources from the adverse party; division among clients can be handled through mediation or arbitration the lawyer helps establish, but the lawyer cannot actively represent one current client against another.

In practice

The opinion holds that joint representation of a car's occupants is conflict-free for PIP claims and for claims where the defendant's assets cover everyone, but breaks down when the driver's own liability to the passengers is in play or when limited assets pit the clients against each other. Per the opinion, the analysis turns on whether the clients' interests become directly adverse (driver liability, scarce assets) versus aligned (PIP, adequate assets), with aggregate settlements triggering Oregon RPC 1.8(g)'s separate consent requirements. Verify the current text of Oregon RPC 1.7 and 1.8 before relying on any specific point.

Common questions

Q: Can one lawyer represent both the driver and passengers against the other driver?

A: Sometimes. The opinion concludes the lawyer cannot if the driver's liability for the passengers' injuries is genuinely at issue (a possible nonwaivable conflict), but may where that liability is not in play.

Q: What about representing both just for the passengers' PIP claims?

A: Yes. The opinion concludes there is no conflict, because PIP benefits are per capita and not based on the driver's fault.

Q: What if the other driver does not have enough assets to cover everyone?

A: It can create a conflict. The opinion concludes there is no conflict if assets are adequate, but if resources are or become insufficient, continued representation requires all clients' informed consent to limit the representation to collecting available resources.

Q: What if an aggregate settlement is offered?

A: Oregon RPC 1.8(g) applies. The opinion concludes the lawyer may not make an aggregate settlement of multiple clients' claims without each client's informed consent in a signed writing disclosing all claims and each client's participation.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Oregon RPC 1.7 (current-client conflicts) and Oregon RPC 1.8(g) (aggregate settlements), corresponding to Model Rules 1.7 and 1.8, applied to multiple plaintiffs (driver and passengers) in a single motor-vehicle case, with PIP claims governed by ORS 742.520 and 742.524.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Oregon RPC 1.7 / Model Rule 1.7 (current-client conflicts)
• Oregon RPC 1.8(g) / Model Rule 1.8 (aggregate settlements)

Statutes:

• ORS 742.520; ORS 742.524 (personal injury protection benefits)

Cases:

• In re Gatti, 356 Or 32, 333 P3d 994 (2014) (definition of a non-class aggregate settlement)

Other opinions cited:

• OSB Formal Ethics Op. No. 2005-82 (rev 2026) (multiple criminal defendants)
• OSB Formal Ethics Op. No. 2005-86 (rev 2026) (representing husband and wife)
• OSB Formal Ethics Op. Nos. 2005-11, 2005-17 (former-client conflicts on conversion to former client)

See also

• OSB Ethics Op. 2005-124: Contingent Fees on PIP Benefits
• OSB Ethics Op. 2005-82: Representing Multiple Criminal Defendants
• OSB Ethics Op. 2005-86: Representing Husband and Wife

Source

• Landing page: https://www.osbar.org/ethics/toc.html
• Original PDF: https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-158.pdf