Could a lawyer represent a father seeking visitation after the lawyer's firm handled a prior matter involving the mother?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1992. Ask about yours and see what the current North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A lawyer asked whether he could represent a father seeking visitation after the lawyer's firm had handled an earlier name-change matter involving the mother and child. The lawyer had joined the firm after that earlier matter. In its response, the committee described the firm's earlier work as representation of the mother and applied Rule 1.10: if the firm could not represent the father, the newly joined lawyer could not do so either.
The committee said the lawyer and firm could undertake the father's matter only if they fully complied with Rules 1.6 and 1.9. It lacked enough information to determine whether information from the earlier matter created a conflict. It said information acquired in the earlier representation could not be used to advance the father's cause.
The committee also said Rule 1.9 allowed the mother's consent. Seeking that consent required disclosure to her of the circumstances and the lawyer's intended role, which might itself disclose information the father wanted kept private. The committee said the lawyer would have to consult the father before approaching the mother. Its conclusion was conditional, and it described representation as potentially inadvisable on the limited facts supplied.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1992, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 joining the firm after its earlier matter remove the imputed-conflict issue?
A: No. The committee said Rule 1.10 applied any restriction on the firm to the newly joined lawyer as well.
Q: Did the committee decide whether the father could be represented?
A: It gave a conditional answer. The lawyer and firm could proceed only if they fully complied with Rules 1.6 and 1.9 or obtained the mother's consent under Rule 1.9; the committee lacked facts to decide whether earlier information caused a conflict.
Q: What problem did the committee identify in seeking the mother's consent?
A: The required explanation of the father's matter and the lawyer's role might reveal information the father did not want disclosed, so the committee said the lawyer would need to consult him first.
Background and rules framework
The letter applies North Dakota Rule 1.10 to imputation within the firm, Rule 1.6 to information from the earlier representation, and Rule 1.9 to the former-client issue and possible consent.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- North Dakota Rule 1.10, imputation of a firm restriction.
- North Dakota Rules 1.6 and 1.9, confidentiality and former-client limits.
See also
Source
- Landing page: https://www.sband.org/page/ethics_opinions
- Original PDF: https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000id_/https://www.sband.org/resource/resmgr/docs/for_lawyers/92-03.pdf
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 1992. 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