Can a lawyer who handled a man's divorce later represent his new wife in her divorce from him?
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 lawyer had represented a husband in a dissolution proceeding in 1980. The lawyer was now asked by that former client's new wife to represent her in a new dissolution proceeding.
The committee was of the opinion that the lawyer could undertake the representation adverse to the former client only by complying with the requirements of RPC 1.9(a), because the committee was of the opinion that this representation was substantially related to the prior matter.
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(a), governing duties to former clients, corresponds to Model Rule 1.9(a) and has since been amended. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule or requirement mentioned here.
Common questions
Q: Can a lawyer represent a former client's new spouse in a divorce against that former client?
A: Per the opinion, only by complying with RPC 1.9(a). The committee was of the opinion that the new representation was substantially related to the prior dissolution the lawyer had handled for the former client.
Q: Why did RPC 1.9(a) apply here?
A: The committee was of the opinion that the representation was substantially related to the prior matter, which is the trigger for RPC 1.9(a)'s former-client conflict requirements.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies the rule then numbered Washington RPC 1.9(a), corresponding to Model Rule 1.9(a), which bars a lawyer from representing a new client against a former client in the same or a substantially related matter without compliance with the rule. The committee made the outcome turn on the substantial-relationship finding: because the new dissolution was substantially related to the husband's prior dissolution, RPC 1.9(a) governed.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Washington RPC 1.9(a) (duties to former clients), corresponding to Model Rule 1.9(a).
See also
- WSBA Ethics Op. 1078: suing a defendant a partner once represented in an unrelated matter
- WSBA Ethics Op. 1195: when a prior attorney-client relationship triggers RPC 1.9
- WSBA Ethics Op. 962: a former-client conflict between adverse claimants to a decedent's claim
Source
- Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=279
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Advisory Opinion: 1199
Year Issued: 1988
RPC(s): RPC 1.9(a)
Subject: Conflict of interest; representation of wife in divorce when represented husband in his prior dissolution
The Committee was of the opinion that where you had represented a husband in a dissolution proceeding in 1980 and you have now been asked by your former client's new wife to represent her in a new dissolution proceeding, you can only undertake the representation adverse to your former client by complying with the requirements of RPC 1.9(a), because the Committee was of the opinion that this representation was substantially related to the prior matter.
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