Can one lawyer represent more than one defendant in the same criminal case?
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 is asked to represent multiple defendants in a criminal matter. The opinion asks whether the lawyer may ethically do so, and answers no, qualified.
The opinion applies Oregon RPC 1.7. A current conflict exists where representing one client is directly adverse to another or where there is a significant risk that representing one client will be materially limited by responsibilities to the other. Even where a conflict could otherwise be waived, RPC 1.7(b)(3) bars representation that would obligate the lawyer to contend for something on behalf of one client that the lawyer has a duty to oppose on behalf of another.
The opinion concludes that in many, if not most, joint representations of criminal defendants, the lawyer would effectively be obligated to contend for one client what the lawyer must oppose for the other. That is true, for example, where one client might be offered or might want to propose a deal with the district attorney for a lesser sentence in exchange for testimony against the other, or where there are material inconsistencies between the two clients' factual or legal positions. Simultaneous representation in either circumstance is barred by RPC 1.7(b)(3).
In the few cases where neither the material-limitation provision (RPC 1.7(a)(2)) nor the contend-and-oppose provision (RPC 1.7(b)(3)) is implicated, the lawyer could proceed without the clients' consent, for example where the two defendants are spouses whose positions and interests are the same.
In practice
The opinion holds that joint representation of criminal co-defendants is generally prohibited because the typical features of criminal cases, the possibility of a cooperation or plea deal against a co-defendant and divergent factual or legal positions, create a conflict that RPC 1.7(b)(3) does not allow the clients to waive. The narrow exception is the unusual case where the defendants' interests and positions are genuinely identical, in which the representation may proceed. Verify the current text of Oregon RPC 1.7 before relying on any specific point.
Common questions
Q: Can I represent two co-defendants in the same criminal case?
A: Usually no. The opinion concludes most criminal joint representations create a nonconsentable conflict under RPC 1.7(b)(3), because the lawyer would have to advance one client's interest while opposing it for the other.
Q: Why can't the clients just consent?
A: Because RPC 1.7(b)(3) bars a representation that would obligate the lawyer to contend for something on behalf of one client that the lawyer must oppose on behalf of another; per the opinion, that kind of conflict cannot be cured by consent.
Q: Is joint representation of co-defendants ever allowed?
A: In rare cases. The opinion concludes that where neither the material-limitation nor the contend-and-oppose provision is implicated, such as co-defendant spouses whose positions and interests are the same, the lawyer could proceed.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets Oregon RPC 1.7 (current-client conflicts), in particular the nonconsentable-conflict provision in RPC 1.7(b)(3), with the consent definitions in RPC 1.0(b) and (g). These correspond to Model Rules 1.7 and 1.0. The analysis turns on the structural likelihood that co-defendants' interests diverge.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Oregon RPC 1.7 / Model Rule 1.7 (conflicts of interest, current clients)
- Oregon RPC 1.0(b), (g) / Model Rule 1.0 (confirmed in writing; informed consent)
Cases:
- In re O'Neal, 297 Or 258, 683 P2d 1352 (1984)
- In re Porter, 283 Or 517, 584 P2d 744 (1978)
- In re Wyllie, 331 Or 606, 19 P3d 338 (2001)
- United States v. Rewald, 889 F2d 836 (9th Cir 1989)
Other opinions cited:
- OSB Formal Ethics Op. No. 2005-77; OSB Formal Ethics Op. No. 2005-72 (current-client conflicts)
See also
- OSB Ethics Op. 2005-72: Conflicts in a Chain of Debt
- OSB Ethics Op. 2005-77: Defending the Insured After Coverage Work for the Insurer
Source
- Landing page: https://www.osbar.org/ethics/toc.html
- Original PDF: https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-82.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.