Can a lawyer oppose a party in a divorce-decree dispute when his new law partner originally represented that party in the divorce?

Plain-English summary

Lawyer A represented the wife in a divorce, where she won custody, child support, and a lien on the family home. Lawyer B was later hired by the ex-husband to modify the support provisions of the decree. A and B then became partners. A separate suit by the wife, represented by an unrelated lawyer, was now pending to foreclose the lien, and it necessarily required construing both the divorce decree and the modifying order.

The Committee held unanimously that it would violate Canon 6 for B to accept employment in the pending litigation (10-0). The conflict arose from A's original representation of the wife, imputed to B as A's partner, despite the wife's present independent counsel.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1954, under the former Texas Canons of Ethics, which the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct replaced effective January 1, 1990. The duties to a former client and the imputation of a partner's conflict are now governed by Texas Disciplinary Rules 1.09 and ABA Model Rules 1.9 and 1.10. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Could lawyer B oppose the wife when his new partner had represented her in the original divorce?

A: No. The Committee held that it would violate Canon 6 for B to accept the employment, by a unanimous 10-0 vote.

Q: Did it matter that the wife now had her own separate lawyer?

A: No. The conclusion applied even though the wife was represented in the pending suit by a lawyer with no connection to A or B.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canon 6, the conflicting-interests provision, applied where one partner's prior representation is imputed to the other. The modern analogs are ABA Model Rule 1.9 (duties to former clients) and Model Rule 1.10 (imputation of conflicts), with Texas Disciplinary Rule 1.09 as the state counterpart.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.9 (duties to former clients), as the modern analog
• MR 1.10 (imputation of conflicts of interest)
• Texas Canon 6 (conflicting interests)

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 113: State Cannot Consent to DA Conflict
• TX Ethics Op. 115: Representing a Former Guardian
• TX Ethics Op. 109: District Attorney Conflict in a Related Divorce

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-104/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_104.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

QUESTION PRESENTED

Attorney A represented plaintiff in a divorce action in which she gained custody of the children and an award for child support, secured by a lien against the family home. Subsequently attorney B was employed by the man who had been defendant in the divorce action to bring a suit to modify some of the provisions of the original decree in respect to child support. Thereafter, A and B became partners. There is now pending a suit by the woman who was plaintiff in the divorce action to foreclose the lien on the homestead; she is represented in this action by a different attorney, who has no connection with A or B. The present suit necessarily involves construction of the divorce decree and of the order modifying the decree. Would it violate the Canons of Ethics for B to represent the ex-husband in the pending litigation?

18 Baylor L. Rev. 237 (1966)

CONFLICTING INTERESTS - PARTNER'S EMPLOYMENT
One member of a firm may not represent the defendant in a suit to enforce a divorce decree where another partner, who subsequently joined the firm, had represented the plaintiff in obtaining the divorce originally, even though the plaintiff now has independent counsel.

Canon 6.

The members of the committee are unanimously of the opinion that it would violate Canon 6 for B to accept employment in the pending litigation. (10-0)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 104 (1954)