Can a lawyer represent a law partner in a private contractual dispute that has nothing to do with the firm or its legal work?

Plain-English summary

The committee considered whether a lawyer could represent his law partner in a private contractual dispute between the partner and third persons. It opined that doing so was not improper if neither the issues in the suit nor the real property involved pertained to anything connected with the law partnership or legal work handled by the firm, citing DR 5-101(B) and DR 5-102(A) and referring to Bottaro v. Hatton Associates.

The committee note records that under current Rule 3.7(c) a lawyer's disqualification as a witness is no longer imputed to the entire firm unless the representation would create a conflict under Rule 1.7 or Rule 1.9; the disqualification is not imputed to the lawyer's firm absent an actual conflict of interest.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1987, under Virginia's former Code of Professional Responsibility (the disciplinary rules it cites), before the Virginia State Bar's adoption of the Rules of Professional Conduct effective January 1, 2000. The committee note describes the current lawyer-as-witness imputation rule, Rule 3.7(c). 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can a lawyer represent a partner in a personal lawsuit unrelated to the firm?

A: Under this 1987 opinion, yes. The committee found it not improper, provided neither the issues nor the real property in the suit related to the partnership or to legal work handled by the firm.

Q: What was the committee's limiting condition?

A: That nothing in the suit connect to the firm. The committee tied the result to the absence of any link between the dispute and the partnership's business or legal work.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied former Virginia DR 5-101(B) (lawyer's personal interest and acting as a witness) and DR 5-102(A) (a lawyer who learns he ought to be called as a witness), provisions that correspond to ABA Model Rule 3.7. The committee note maps the imputation question onto current Virginia Rule 3.7(c).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Former Virginia DR 5-101(B) and DR 5-102(A) (lawyer as witness)
• Virginia Rule 3.7(c) / ABA Model Rule 3.7 (lawyer as witness; imputation)

Cases:

• Bottaro v. Hatton Associates, 680 F.2d 895 (2d Cir. 1982), cited by the committee

See also

• VA LEO 960: A Partner Trying the Firm's Fee Suit While the Lawyer Testifies
• VA LEO 1513: Witness-Partner and Firm Disqualification
• VA LEO 1136: Attorney as Witness and Withdrawal for Substantial Hardship

Source

• Landing page: https://vsb.org/Site/about/rules-regulations/leo-opinions.aspx
• Original PDF: https://www.vsb.org/common/Uploaded%20files/LEOs/0958.pdf

Original opinion text

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

Committee Opinion
August 21, 1987
LEGAL ETHICS OPINION 958

ATTORNEY – REPRESENTATION
OF LAW PARTNER.

It is not improper for an attorney to represent his partner in a private contractual dispute between the attorney and third persons if neither the issues of the suit nor the real property involved pertain to anything connected with his law partnership or legal work handled by his firm. [DR:5-101(B), DR:5-102(A); See also Bottaro v. Hatton Associates, 680 F.2d 895 (Cal. 2 1982)] Committee Opinion August 21, 1987 Legal Ethics Committee Notes. – See Rule 3.7 (c) stating that there is no longer disqualification of the entire firm when a lawyer must testify, unless representation would create a conflict under Rule 1.7 or Rule 1.9. Under Rule 3.7(c), this disqualification is not imputed to the lawyer’s firm unless there is an actual conflict of interest.