Could one lawyer represent two clients in separate divorces involving the clients' spouses, who were living together?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1983. Ask about yours and see what the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Two spouses from different marriages sought the same lawyer's help in separate divorce cases after their respective spouses began living together. During the cases, the two clients also began living together. The lawyer discussed the dual representation with both clients and obtained their consent. Opposing counsel questioned whether the lawyer could continue representing them.
The committee applied former DR 5-105(B) and (C). It identified possible competition over support, alimony, custody, or property, and the possibility that one client might become a witness whom the lawyer would need to challenge in the other's case. On the facts supplied, the committee found those possibilities did not meet the rule's likelihood threshold for adverse effects or differing interests.
The committee said the lawyer could continue representing both clients at that time. It added that consent after full disclosure could allow the representation while conflicts remained potential, but the lawyer could not continue if actual conflicts developed.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1983 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 a possible competition for support or custody bar the lawyer immediately?
A: No. The committee said no actual inconsistency had arisen on the stated facts and found no likely conflict under DR 5-105(B) at that time.
Q: Could client consent permit the dual representation?
A: The committee said consent under DR 5-105(C) could be effective while conflicts remained potential rather than actual and apparent at the outset.
Q: What if the clients' interests later diverged?
A: The opinion said the lawyer could not continue both representations if actual conflicts arose.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied former Code DR 5-105(B), concerning multiple employment and differing interests, and DR 5-105(C), concerning consent after full disclosure.
Citations and references
Vermont Code of Professional Responsibility:
- DR 5-105(B), DR 5-105(C)
Other opinion cited:
- ABA Informal Opinion 1441 (1979), cited for consent while conflicts are potential.
See also
- Vermont Ethics Op. 84-02: Lawyer married to the transaction's broker
- Vermont Ethics Op. 84-01: Police association counsel and criminal defense
Source
- Landing page: VBA conflict of interest opinions
- Original PDF: Vermont Advisory Opinion 83-04
- 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 1983. 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