Ezel / Ethics Opinions / SBAND

May a firm sue a former divorce client in an unrelated personal injury action?

Short answer The committee said Rule 1.9 did not bar the new accident representation on the stated assumption that the divorce client was a former client and the matters were unrelated. The firm still could not use former-client confidential information to that client’s disadvantage.
Bar
SBAND
Issued
April 29, 1997
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1997. 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

A firm lawyer was retained for an accident claim against a driver whom another lawyer at the firm had represented in a completed divorce. The firm had recently communicated with the driver about returning divorce-file papers.

The committee treated the accident and divorce as different, not substantially related matters under Rule 1.9. It said imputation meant the new lawyer’s personal lack of file knowledge did not alone settle the rule question, while the firm’s confidentiality duties persisted. The opinion also flagged Rule 1.7 if the driver’s client relationship had not truly ended.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 consider the two matters substantially related?

A: No. It found the divorce and personal injury claim dissimilar on the stated facts.

Q: Could former divorce counsel’s confidential information be used in the accident case?

A: No. The committee said Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c) continued to protect that information.

Background and rules framework

The opinion discusses North Dakota Rules 1.9, 1.10(a), 1.6 in addressing the stated request.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • North Dakota Rule 1.9.
  • North Dakota Rule 1.10(a).
  • North Dakota Rule 1.6.

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 1997. 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