Can two Oregon lawyers who share office space represent opposing parties in the same lawsuit?

Plain-English summary

Lawyer A and Lawyer B keep independent practices but share office space, and both handle personal-injury litigation. The opinion asks whether Lawyer A may represent the plaintiff in a suit in which Lawyer B represents the defendant, and whether the answer changes if the two share a common employee who holds confidences of both lawyers' clients.

The opinion concludes the answer to the first question is yes, qualified. If A and B were members of the same firm, simultaneously representing the plaintiff and defendant in one case would be a nonwaivable conflict under Oregon RPC 1.7. But office sharers are not a firm under RPC 1.0(d) absent indicia of a de facto firm. So A and B may represent opposing parties as long as they (1) do not hold out to the public as the same firm through joint advertising, a joint letterhead, or otherwise; (2) respect the confidentiality of their respective clients' information and cause their employees to do so; and (3) keep their files separate.

The opinion explains these requirements do not bar office sharers from using the same telephone system or file room, so long as files are physically separated and access limits are made clear and observed. If they share a phone system, they may not represent adverse parties unless they ensure messages containing confidential client information are not given to or transmitted by shared personnel, and shared personnel must not open mail.

On the second question, the opinion concludes the answer is yes, the situation is different. If A and B share a secretary or other employee who holds the confidences of both lawyers' clients, or if any of the protective steps are not taken, the simultaneous representations would be prohibited by Oregon RPC 1.6, RPC 1.7, or both.

In practice

The opinion holds that, under Oregon RPC 1.0(d), office sharers are not automatically one firm for conflict purposes, so RPC 1.7's nonwaivable bar on representing both sides of a case does not apply to them by imputation. Per the opinion, opposing-party representation is permissible only if the sharers avoid holding out as one firm, keep files separate, and prevent shared phones, mail, or staff from exposing one client's confidences to the other side; where a shared employee holds both sides' confidences, RPC 1.6 and 1.7 prohibit the dual representation.

Common questions

Q: Can lawyers who share an office be on opposite sides of the same case?

A: Yes, qualified. The opinion concludes they may, because office sharers are not a single firm under RPC 1.0(d), provided they keep files separate, do not hold out as one firm, and protect each side's confidences.

Q: Does sharing a receptionist, phone line, or file room create a conflict?

A: Not by itself. The opinion concludes sharing phones or a file room is allowed if files are separated and access is limited, but adverse representation is barred if shared personnel handle confidential messages or mail, or share a staffer who holds both sides' confidences.

Q: What makes the opposing-party representation impermissible?

A: Per the opinion, sharing an employee who holds confidences of both lawyers' clients, or failing the protective steps, makes the simultaneous representation a violation of Oregon RPC 1.6, RPC 1.7, or both.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Oregon RPC 1.7 (current-client conflicts) and RPC 1.6 (confidentiality), and turns on the firm definition in RPC 1.0(d) and the definition of protected information in RPC 1.0(f). These correspond to Model Rules 1.7 and 1.6. The analysis distinguishes a true firm, where conflicts are imputed, from office sharers, who are separate unless they create a de facto firm.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Oregon RPC 1.7 / Model Rule 1.7 (current-client conflicts)
• Oregon RPC 1.6 / Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality)
• Oregon RPC 1.0(d) (definition of firm)
• Oregon RPC 1.0(f) (information relating to the representation)

Cases:

• State v. Charlesworth, 151 Or App 100, 951 P2d 153 (1997), rev den, 327 Or 82 (1998)

Other opinions cited:

• OSB Formal Ethics Op. No. 2005-28: conflicts between current clients
• OSB Formal Ethics Op. No. 2005-44: part-time nonlawyer shared by adverse firms
• OSB Formal Ethics Op. No. 2005-12: firm names and office sharing

See also

• OSB Ethics Op. 2005-44: A Part-Time Nonlawyer Shared by Adverse Firms
• OSB Ethics Op. 2005-12: Firm Names and Office Sharing

Source

• Landing page: https://www.osbar.org/ethics/toc.html
• Original PDF: https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-50.pdf