Can a firm keep representing a husband in a dissolution when the wife once briefly consulted an associate who has since left the firm?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1988. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The inquiry concerned a possible conflict of interest in the firm's representation of a husband in a marriage dissolution where the wife had apparently consulted briefly with a former associate in the firm. From the facts presented, other than that brief consultation, the wife never became a client of the firm, and the firm has no files or other records regarding the consultation.
On those facts, the committee was of the opinion that because the firm is in possession of no confidences or secrets of the wife, and because the attorney with whom she consulted is no longer associated with the firm, there is no violation of RPC 1.10(c)(2) or any other applicable rule that would require withdrawal from further representation of the husband.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1988, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. The rules it discusses, RPC 1.9 (duties to former clients) and RPC 1.10 (imputed disqualification), correspond to Model Rules 1.9 and 1.10 and have since been amended; the Washington imputation provision was renumbered in the 2006 revision. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Does a brief consultation with an associate disqualify the whole firm?
A: Per the opinion, not on these facts. The committee found no imputed disqualification where the firm holds no confidences or secrets of the person who consulted and the associate she consulted has left the firm.
Q: Why did the associate's departure matter?
A: The committee reasoned that because the attorney with whom the wife consulted is no longer associated with the firm, and the firm has no confidences or secrets of hers, there is no violation of RPC 1.10(c)(2) requiring withdrawal.
Q: Did the wife become a client of the firm?
A: The committee took the facts to be that, other than the brief consultation, the wife never became a client of the firm and the firm has no files or records of the consultation.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies Washington RPC 1.9 (duties to former clients) and RPC 1.10(c)(2) (imputed disqualification), corresponding to Model Rules 1.9 and 1.10. The committee made imputation turn on the absence of client confidences within the firm: with no confidences or secrets of the wife and the consulted associate having left, the firm is not disqualified from continuing to represent the husband.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Washington RPC 1.9 (duties to former clients), corresponding to Model Rule 1.9.
- Washington RPC 1.10(c)(2) (imputed disqualification), corresponding to Model Rule 1.10.
See also
- WSBA Ethics Op. 1229: continuing against a nominal former client where the lawyer holds no confidences
- WSBA Ethics Op. 1022: imputed disqualification of a firm that hires a lateral lawyer with no confidences
- WSBA Ethics Op. 1159: imputed disqualification when lawyers from a former firm oppose each other
Source
- Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=320
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Advisory Opinion: 1240
Year Issued: 1988
RPC(s): RPC 1.9; 1.10(c)(2)
Subject: Conflict of interest; imputed disqualification; wife consulted with former associate of firm that now represents husband
The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning a possible conflict of interest concerning your representation of a husband in a marriage dissolution proceeding where the wife had previously apparently consulted briefly with a former associate in your law firm. From the facts presented, it appears that other than that brief consultation, the wife never became a client of the firm and that your firm has no files or other records regarding that consultation.
Therefore, based upon the facts presented, the Committee was of the opinion that because your law firm is in possession of no confidences or secrets of the wife, since the attorney with whom she consulted is no longer associated with your firm, there is no violation of RPC 1.10(c)(2) or any other applicable rule which would require you to withdraw from further representation of the husband.
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1988 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.