If a lawyer represents both spouses on a personal injury claim and they then divorce and fight over the proceeds, can the lawyer keep representing both?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1991. 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
A lawyer represented a husband and wife in a personal injury matter, including a loss-of-consortium claim on behalf of one spouse. While that matter was pending, the spouses filed for dissolution of their marriage and came to dispute how the proceeds of the personal injury claim should be distributed. The lawyer asked what his ethical obligations were.
The committee was of the opinion that the lawyer could continue to represent both parties on the underlying personal injury claim. If the spouses could not agree on the distribution of the proceeds, however, the committee said they should be referred to separate individual counsel regarding that dispute.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1991, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.
Common questions
Q: Can the lawyer keep representing both spouses on the personal injury claim after they file for divorce?
A: The committee was of the opinion that the lawyer could continue to represent both parties on the underlying personal injury claim.
Q: What happens when the spouses disagree about dividing the recovery?
A: The committee said that if they could not agree on the distribution of the proceeds, they should be referred to separate individual counsel regarding that dispute.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied RPC 1.7, Washington's conflict-of-interest rule for concurrent representation, which corresponds to ABA Model Rule 1.7. The committee distinguished between the spouses' shared interest in the underlying personal injury claim and their adverse interests in dividing the proceeds, treating only the latter as the point at which separate counsel became necessary.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- ABA Model Rule 1.7 (concurrent conflicts of interest)
- Washington RPC 1.7
See also
- DC Ethics Op. 243: Joint Representation in Divorce
- ISBA Ethics Op. 98-06: Divorce Plus Joint Bankruptcy
Source
- Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=500
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Advisory Opinion: 1420
Year Issued: 1991
RPC(s): RPC 1.7
Subject: Conflict of interest; husband and wife represented in personal injury case file for dissolution and disagree on distribution of proceeds from personal injury case
The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning a situation in which you are representing a husband and wife in a personal injury matter, including a claim for loss of consortium on behalf of one spouse and while that matter is pending, the spouses file for dissolution of their marriage. The parties dispute how the proceeds of the personal injury claim are to be distributed. You ask what your ethical obligations are.
The Committee was of the opinion that in such a situation the lawyer could continue to represent both parties on the underlying personal injury claim, but if they could not agree on the distribution of the proceeds, they should be referred to separate individual counsel regarding that dispute.
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1991 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.