Ezel / Ethics Opinions / VTBAR

Could a Vermont lawyer represent a new wife against a husband the lawyer represented in a divorce 15 years earlier?

Short answer Opinion 98-12 permitted the new wife’s representation on the stated facts: the earlier divorce was unrelated, the lawyer had learned no relevant confidences, and the former marital property was gone. It called for withdrawal if detrimental confidences surfaced.
Bar
VTBAR
Issued
1998
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1998. Ask about yours and see what the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.

Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

A lawyer had represented a husband in an uncontested divorce more than 15 years earlier, mainly formalizing an agreement the former spouses had reached. The husband no longer owned property received in that divorce. The lawyer was then asked to represent the husband’s new wife against him in another divorce.

The committee applied the former Code’s confidentiality and former-client principles. On the lawyer’s stated facts, it found no substantial relationship between the two matters and no relevant confidence or secret from the earlier representation. It therefore permitted the new wife’s representation.

The answer depended on those facts. If the lawyer later discovered or recalled a confidence or secret from the former husband that could harm him, the opinion said the lawyer should withdraw.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1998 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 the old divorce automatically disqualify the lawyer?

A: No. The committee found the prior and new divorces unrelated on the stated facts.

Q: What facts mattered to the committee?

A: The earlier work largely formalized an uncontested agreement, the old property was no longer held, and the lawyer reported no relevant confidences or secrets.

Q: What if a harmful former-client confidence surfaced?

A: The opinion said the lawyer should withdraw.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied former Code Canons 4 and 9 and DR 4-101(A) and (B), and drew on Vermont Opinions 78-3 and 95-13 for the substantially related matter analysis.

Citations and references

Vermont Code of Professional Responsibility:

  • Canon 4, Canon 9, DR 4-101(A), DR 4-101(B)(2), DR 4-101(B)(3)

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1998. 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