Could lawyers sharing a filing cabinet, planned secretary, and case discussions take opposite sides of a transaction?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1979. Ask about yours and see what the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Two lawyers shared offices but did not claim to be partners or affiliates. They used different drawers in one filing cabinet, planned to use the same secretary, and sometimes discussed cases and strategy without naming clients.
The committee said these practices imperiled client confidences despite the lawyers' intent to protect them. A shared secretary could misfile or disclose information, and case conversations could occur near exposed files. The arrangement could also appear to clients as a single practice despite the lawyers' separate business relationship.
Applying EC 4-1 and EC 9-6, the committee said the lawyers were subject to the same conflict restrictions as affiliated lawyers. It specifically rejected their representing buyer and seller on opposite sides of a real estate transaction.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1979 under Vermont's former Code of Professional Responsibility. The Vermont Supreme Court's rules history says the Rules of Professional Conduct replaced the Code and applied to lawyer conduct after September 1, 1999; the court later made comprehensive amendments in 2009. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 using separate drawers in the filing cabinet resolve the concern?
A: No. The committee found the shared cabinet, planned secretary, and case discussions still threatened confidentiality.
Q: Could the two lawyers represent opposite sides of a property sale?
A: No. The committee called buyer and seller representation under this arrangement ethically improper.
Background and rules framework
The opinion relied on former Code EC 4-1, concerning client confidences, and EC 9-6, concerning the appearance of impropriety. A later Vermont Opinion 80-15 distinguished a narrower office-sharing arrangement.
Citations and references
Vermont Code of Professional Responsibility:
- EC 4-1, EC 9-6
See also
- Vermont Ethics Op. 80-15: Separate lawyers sharing an office
- Vermont Ethics Op. 79-23: Bank-imposed dual representation
Source
- Landing page: VBA conflict of interest opinions
- Original PDF: Vermont Advisory Opinion 79-22
- Rules history: Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, “These rules apply to lawyer conduct after September 1, 1999.”
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1979. Ezel checks the current Vermont 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