Can one lawyer defend both drivers charged after a collision, even if they have settled their dispute with each other?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry described a city ordinance under which two drivers in a collision are prima facie guilty of negligence and are arrested and charged with "Negligent Collision." After the two drivers had amicably settled their differences, the question was whether the same attorney could represent both in the prosecution of the criminal charges.

The committee concluded that there would necessarily be a conflict of interest, so it would violate both Texas Canon 6 and American (ABA) Canon 6 for the same attorney to defend both charges. The vote was 9-1.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1951, under the former Texas Canons of Ethics, which the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct replaced effective January 1, 1990. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis; the representation of multiple parties with conflicting interests is now addressed by ABA Model Rule 1.7. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 one lawyer represent both drivers because they had already settled with each other?

A: No. The committee held (9-1) that the settlement did not remove the conflict; the two defendants' positions in the criminal prosecution necessarily conflicted, so one lawyer could not represent both.

Q: Which rules did the committee apply?

A: It applied both Texas Canon 6 and the American Bar Association's Canon 6, the conflicting-interests provisions in force at the time.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets former Texas Canon 6 and ABA Canon 6 (adverse influences and conflicting interests), applied to common representation of two opposing defendants. The modern analog is ABA Model Rule 1.7 (conflicts of interest), which governs whether and when a single lawyer may represent multiple clients with adverse interests.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.7 (conflicts of interest), as the modern analog
• Texas Canon 6 and ABA Canon 6 (adverse influences and conflicting interests)

See also

• TX Ethics Op. 59: Partners Unknowingly on Both Sides of a Collision
• TX Ethics Op. 47: Conflicts of Interest in a Will-Interpretation Suit
• TX Ethics Op. 49: City Attorney Practicing Criminal Law Elsewhere

Source

• Landing page: https://www.legalethicstexas.com/resources/opinions/opinion-43/
• Original PDF: https://tcle-web.s3.amazonaws.com/public/documents/Opinion_43.pdf

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION PRESENTED

Under a city ordinance where two vehicles have a collision, both drivers are prima facie guilty of negligence, and are arrested and charged with "Negligent Collision," in the event the parties have amicably settled their differences, would it be a violation of the Texas Canons of Ethics for the same attorney to represent both parties in the prosecution of the criminal charges which were filed?

18 Baylor L. Rev. 214 (1966)

CONFLICT OF INTERESTS - EMPLOYMENT
An attorney may not represent both drivers who have had a collision, are prima facie guilty of negligence under a city ordinance, are arrested and charged with "Negligent Collision," and have amicably settled their differences, in the prosecution of the criminal charges which were filed.

Canon 6. A.B.A. Canon 6.

The committee is of the opinion that there would necessarily be a conflict of interest, and it would be a violation of both Texas Canon 6 and American Canon 6 for the same attorney to defend both charges. (9-1)

Tex. Comm. On Professional Ethics, Op. 43 (1951)