Ezel / Ethics Opinions / SBAND

May a lawyer sue a current organizational client on behalf of another client in an unrelated matter?

Short answer The committee said both current clients’ consent after consultation was required, even if the lawyer reasonably believed neither representation would be impaired. Because the organization refused consent, the lawyer had to withdraw from the adverse suit.
Bar
SBAND
Issued
March 18, 1996
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1996. 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 lawyer represented an organization in two pending matters while also representing another client in a suit against that organization. The organization refused to consent to the adverse representation.

The committee applied Rule 1.7(c) to the simultaneous, directly adverse representations. It said the lawyer needed the consent of both clients and, because the organizational client withheld it, must withdraw from representing the plaintiff in the adverse case.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 unrelated nature of the suits eliminate the consent requirement?

A: No. The committee said consent from both current clients was required even if the lawyer reasonably believed continued representation would not adversely affect either.

Q: What was the result after the organization refused consent?

A: The committee said the lawyer must withdraw from the plaintiff’s suit.

Background and rules framework

The opinion discusses North Dakota Rules 1.7(c) in addressing the stated request.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • North Dakota Rule 1.7(c).

See also

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 1996. 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