Can a lawyer who has a personal claim against an estate also serve as the lawyer for that estate?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned a lawyer asserting a pre-existing claim against an estate for which the lawyer was now the attorney. The committee was of the opinion that, absent circumstances constituting an actual conflict of interest, there is nothing unethical about filing a claim against the estate pursuant to statute.

The committee reframed the issue. It was of the opinion that the question is not whether a lawyer could file the claim, but whether the lawyer could undertake the representation of the estate while being a claimant. The committee concluded that RPC 1.7(c) would govern that situation.

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(c), governing conflicts of interest, corresponds to Model Rule 1.7 and was later renumbered and 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Is it unethical for a lawyer to file a claim against an estate?

A: Per the opinion, no by itself. The committee was of the opinion that, absent an actual conflict of interest, there is nothing unethical about filing a claim against the estate pursuant to statute.

Q: Can the same lawyer also represent the estate while pressing a claim against it?

A: That is the real question, and the committee said RPC 1.7(c) governs it. The committee did not declare the dual role categorically permitted or prohibited; it identified the conflict rule as the framework for deciding whether the lawyer may undertake the representation while being a claimant.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies the rule then numbered Washington RPC 1.7(c), corresponding to Model Rule 1.7, which governs conflicts of interest. The committee separated the lawyer's statutory right to file a claim from the ethics question of representing the estate while holding that claim, and pointed to RPC 1.7(c) as the rule that decides whether the dual role is permissible on the facts.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Washington RPC 1.7(c) (conflict of interest), corresponding to Model Rule 1.7.

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 1170: representation adverse to a client of another lawyer in the same firm
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1160: consent of the affected parties allowing continued representation
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1068: a lawyer's outside business interests and conflicts

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=247

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1167
Year Issued: 1988
RPC(s): RPC 1.7(c)
Subject: Conflict of interest; lawyer for estate with claim against the estate

The Committee reviewed your inquiry regarding the assertion by a lawyer of a pre-existing claim against an estate for which the lawyer is now the attorney. The Committee was of the opinion that, absent circumstances constituting an actual conflict of interest, there is nothing unethical about filing a claim against the estate pursuant to statute. It was the opinion of the Committee that the issue is not whether a lawyer could file the claim, but whether the lawyer could undertake the representation of the estate while being a claimant. Therefore the Committee was of the opinion that RPC 1.7(c) would govern this situation.