Ezel / Ethics Opinions / SBAND

May a lawyer collect for another firm and later handle a case against a lawyer from that firm?

Short answer The committee declined blanket approval or disapproval. It said Rule 1.7 governed each situation, discussed written consent from the firm and client consent after full consultation if a conflict arose, and barred representation if the lawyer’s interests or other-client duties would adversely affect it.
Bar
SBAND
Issued
December 5, 1988
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1988. Ask about yours and see what the current North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.

How much weight this carries: Under North Dakota Rule for Lawyer Discipline 1.2(B), a lawyer who acts in good faith and in reasonable reliance on a written opinion of the association's ethics committee is not subject to sanction for the conduct the opinion addresses. Source.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

The requester asked whether a lawyer could do collection work for a law firm and later handle lawsuits in which a lawyer from that firm appeared on the other side. The committee said Rule 1.7 applied and declined to approve or disapprove the arrangement across all future cases.

The letter said written consent from the firm seemed appropriate at the outset. If a conflict later arose, the committee said client consent after full consultation would be required. It also said the lawyer must not represent the client if the lawyer believed personal interests or duties to another client would adversely affect representation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1988, before North Dakota's 2006 revisions to its Rules of Professional Conduct. The later North Dakota Opinion 06-05 states: “On August 1, 2006, material changes to N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.10(a) will take effect.” Subsequent rule amendments or 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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.

Common questions

Q: Did the committee grant blanket approval?

A: No. It said each ethical situation had to be addressed as it arose under Rule 1.7.

Q: When did the committee say representation was barred?

A: It said the lawyer must not represent the client if personal interests or responsibilities to another client would adversely affect the representation.

Background and rules framework

The response applies Rule 1.7 to the proposed collection relationship and later adverse cases. It treats firm consent, later client consultation, and a disqualifying adverse effect as separate considerations.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Rule 1.7, cited for conflicts from personal interests or responsibilities to another client.

Source

Original opinion text

Full opinion text unavailable from the official source; see the linked source above for the complete text.

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1988. Ezel checks the current North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace