Can a lawyer represent a wife in a dissolution when a partner in the firm earlier defended the husband on an unrelated criminal charge?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1988. Ask about yours and see what the current Washington Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The inquiring lawyer represented the wife in a dissolution matter. A partner in the lawyer's firm had previously represented the husband in defense of a criminal assault charge, in which the husband was alleged to have struck a tenant in an apartment owned by the husband and wife.
The committee reviewed the inquiry and, based on the facts as set out in it, agreed with the inquiring lawyer's own analysis of the lawyer's obligation under RPC 1.9. The committee was of the opinion that there is no conflict of interest to prevent the lawyer from continuing to represent the wife.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1988, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. The rule then numbered RPC 1.9, governing duties to former clients, corresponds to Model Rule 1.9 and was later amended. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.
Common questions
Q: Does a firm's prior criminal defense of the husband bar it from representing the wife in the divorce?
A: Per the opinion, no on these facts. The committee agreed with the lawyer's RPC 1.9 analysis and was of the opinion that no conflict of interest prevented the lawyer from continuing to represent the wife.
Q: Did it matter that the prior criminal matter was unrelated to the dissolution?
A: The committee framed the prior representation as defense of an unrelated criminal assault charge and, on the facts presented, found no RPC 1.9 conflict. The opinion is expressly tied to the facts as set out in the inquiry.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies the rule then numbered Washington RPC 1.9, corresponding to Model Rule 1.9, which governs a lawyer's duties to former clients, including when a lawyer may act adversely to a person the firm formerly represented. The committee accepted the inquiring lawyer's analysis and concluded, on the stated facts, that no RPC 1.9 conflict barred continued representation of the wife.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Washington RPC 1.9 (duties to former clients), corresponding to Model Rule 1.9.
See also
- WSBA Ethics Op. 1078: litigation against a party a partner once represented in an unrelated matter
- WSBA Ethics Op. 982: suing someone the firm's lawyer once defended on a DWI charge in an unrelated matter
- WSBA Ethics Op. 975: suing a former client on a matter unrelated to the prior work
Source
- Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=238
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Advisory Opinion: 1158
Year Issued: 1988
RPC(s): RPC 1.9
Subject: Conflict of interest; representation of wife where law firm previously represented husband in unrelated criminal charge
[The lawyer represented the wife in a dissolution matter. The lawyer's partner had previously represented the husband in defense of a criminal assault charge in which the husband was alleged to have struck a tenant in an apartment owned by the husband and wife.] The Committee reviewed the inquiry submitted by you and based upon the facts as set out in that inquiry, agreed with your analysis of your obligation under RPC 1.9 and that there is no conflict of interest to prevent you from continuing to represent your client.
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1988. Ezel checks the current Washington 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