Can a lawyer keep representing a client against a union when an associate in the firm does legal work for the local union and the parties have consented?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring lawyer represented a client in a wrongful discharge case against a national union. An associate in the lawyer's firm was retained by the local union office to perform legal services for union members, such as preparing wills and answering general legal questions. Both the attorney for the union and the client informed the lawyer that they did not object to his representation of the client, despite the associate's work for the local union.

Based on the information presented, it appeared to the committee that the parties involved had been advised of the potential conflict of interest and had consented to the lawyer's continued representation. The committee was therefore of the opinion that nothing in the Rules of Professional Conduct would prohibit the lawyer from continuing in this course of conduct.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1988, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. The rule then numbered RPC 1.7, governing conflicts of interest and client consent, corresponds to Model Rule 1.7 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can a firm represent a client against a union while one of its associates works for the local union?

A: Per the opinion, yes where the parties consent. The committee was of the opinion that, with the union's attorney and the client both advised of the potential conflict and consenting, nothing in the Rules of Professional Conduct prohibited the lawyer from continuing.

Q: What made the continued representation permissible here?

A: The committee tied the result to consent: the parties had been advised of the potential conflict of interest and had consented to the lawyer's continued representation.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies the rule then numbered Washington RPC 1.7, corresponding to Model Rule 1.7, which governs conflicts of interest and the conditions under which a client may consent to a representation despite a potential conflict. The committee found the consent of the affected parties sufficient to allow the lawyer to continue.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Washington RPC 1.7 (conflict of interest; client consent), corresponding to Model Rule 1.7.

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 1129: written consent of the wife after the firm represented both spouses in estate planning
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1140: dual representation of a homeowners association found to be no conflict
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1017: a lawyer who is also a real estate broker representing buyers and sellers, with disclosure

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=240

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1160
Year Issued: 1988
RPC(s): RPC 1.7
Subject: Conflict of interest; consent

[The lawyer represents a client in a wrongful discharge case against a national union. An associate in the lawyer's firm is retained by the local union office to perform legal services for union members, such as preparing wills and answering general legal questions. Both the attorney for the union and the client informed the lawyer that they did not object to his representation of the client, despite the associate's work for the local union.] Based upon the information presented in your inquiry, it appears to the Committee that the parties involved have been advised of the potential conflict of interest and have consented to your continued representation of your client, and therefore the Committee is of the opinion that nothing in the Rules of Professional Conduct would prohibit you from continuing in this course of conduct.