WSBA 1991

Can a lawyer take a case against a parent whom the lawyer's former law partner once represented in a related matter?

Short answer: The committee concluded the matter was governed by RPC 1.10, and that the lawyer had to determine whether he held confidences or secrets of the objecting party; if he did, the rule would require his disqualification.

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.

Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.

About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

A lawyer represented one parent in a child custody case. The lawyer's former law partner had previously represented the other parent in a related matter. The lawyer asked whether this presented a conflict of interest.

The committee was of the opinion that the matter was governed by RPC 1.10. It said the lawyer had to determine whether he held confidences or secrets of the objecting party. If he did, the committee said, that rule would require his disqualification.

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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Does a former partner's prior work for the opposing party automatically disqualify the lawyer?

A: Not automatically. The committee said the matter was governed by RPC 1.10 and turned on whether the lawyer held confidences or secrets of the objecting party.

Q: What triggers disqualification under the committee's analysis?

A: If the lawyer determined that he held confidences or secrets of the objecting party, the committee said RPC 1.10 would require his disqualification.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied RPC 1.10, Washington's imputed-disqualification rule, together with RPC 1.9 on duties to former clients, corresponding to ABA Model Rules 1.10 and 1.9. The committee's analysis turned on whether the lawyer possessed confidences or secrets of the party objecting to his representation, carried over from the former partner's earlier work.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

ABA Model Rule 1.9 (duties to former clients) / Washington RPC 1.9
ABA Model Rule 1.10 (imputation of conflicts) / Washington RPC 1.10

Source

Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=512

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1432
Year Issued: 1991
RPC(s): RPC 1.9; 1.10
Subject: Conflict of interest; imputed disqualification; representation of party adverse to former law firm's former client

[The lawyer represents one parent in a child custody case. His former law partner previously represented the other parent in a related matter.] The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning a possible conflict of interest. The Committee is of the opinion that the matter is governed by RPC 1.10, and that you have to determine whether you have confidences or secrets of the objecting party. If so, then that rule would require your disqualification.

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.