Can an Oregon lawyer represent both the birth mother and the adopting parents in an adoption, or just the adopting parents when the lawyer formerly represented the birth mother?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2026. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A lawyer formerly represented a client. After that representation ended, the client told the lawyer she was going to have a baby she wished to place for adoption, and that the interested adopting parents would call the lawyer for legal help. The opinion asks whether the lawyer may represent both the client and the adopting parents in the adoption, and whether the lawyer may represent only the adopting parents.
On the first question the opinion concludes no. Under Oregon RPC 1.7, a lawyer generally cannot represent both sides of a matter in which the parties' interests are necessarily opposed, because the lawyer would have to contend for something on behalf of one client that the lawyer must oppose for the other. The opinion states that consent does not cure this under RPC 1.7(b)(3), and that, although the birth mother's and adopting parents' interests might appear aligned, they necessarily have opposing positions on subjects such as rights in the child and reimbursement of medical expenses.
On the second question the opinion concludes yes, qualified, applying Oregon RPC 1.9. On the facts given, the adoption is not substantially related to the lawyer's prior work for the former client, and there is no indication the lawyer acquired confidential information that could be used against her, so the lawyer could represent the adopting parents without disclosure or consent. The opinion adds that if the matters were substantially related, or the lawyer held information that could be used to the former client's disadvantage, the lawyer could proceed only with the informed consent of both, confirmed in writing.
In practice
The opinion holds that joint representation of both sides of an adoption is barred under RPC 1.7(b)(3) and cannot be cured by consent, because the parties' positions on the child and on expenses are necessarily opposed. Per the opinion, whether the lawyer may represent only the adopting parents turns on the RPC 1.9 former-client test: whether the new matter is substantially related to the prior one and whether the lawyer holds confidential information usable against the former client.
Common questions
Q: Can one lawyer represent both the birth parent and the adopting parents?
A: No. The opinion concludes the interests are necessarily opposed (rights in the child, expense reimbursement), so RPC 1.7(b)(3) bars the joint representation and consent does not cure it.
Q: Can the lawyer represent only the adopting parents after previously representing the birth mother?
A: Yes, qualified. The opinion concludes the lawyer may do so if the prior matter is not substantially related and no confidential information could be used against the former client, under RPC 1.9.
Q: What if the prior matter was related or the lawyer holds the birth mother's confidences?
A: Then the lawyer may proceed only with the informed consent of both the former client and the adopting parents, confirmed in writing.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets Oregon RPC 1.7 (current-client conflicts, including the RPC 1.7(b)(3) bar on contending for and against the same point) and RPC 1.9 (duties to former clients, turning on whether matters are substantially related and on protected information). These track Model Rules 1.7 and 1.9.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Oregon RPC 1.7 / Model Rule 1.7 (current-client conflicts)
- Oregon RPC 1.9 / Model Rule 1.9 (duties to former clients)
Cases:
- In re Wittemyer, 328 Or 448, 980 P2d 148 (1999)
- In re McKee, 316 Or 114, 849 P2d 509 (1993)
- In re Brandsness, 299 Or 420, 702 P2d 1098 (1985)
Other opinions cited:
- OSB Formal Op. 2005-11 and 2005-17: former-client conflicts and confidential information
See also
- OSB Ethics Op. 2005-11: Former-Client Matter-Specific Conflicts
- OSB Ethics Op. 2005-17: Former Client's Confidential Information
- OSB Ethics Op. 2005-27: Trade Association vs. Members Conflict
Source
- Landing page: https://www.osbar.org/ethics/toc.html
- Original PDF: https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-28.pdf
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 2026 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.