Can a lawyer take on an insurance company as a client while representing a current client who, as a bail bondsman, failed to pay funds owed to that insurer?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer asked about possibly representing an insurance company at the same time the lawyer represented another client who, while serving as a bail bondsman, had failed to pay funds owed to that insurance company.

The committee was of the opinion that there is a substantial probability the representation of the insurance company would be materially adverse to the bail bondsman client and would violate RPC 1.7.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1993, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 a lawyer represent an insurer that is owed money by the lawyer's current client?

A: The committee said there is a substantial probability that representation would be materially adverse to the current client and would violate RPC 1.7.

Q: Why was the conflict material?

A: The current client, as a bail bondsman, had failed to pay funds owed to the insurance company, so advancing the insurer's interests would work directly against that client.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied RPC 1.7 (corresponding to ABA Model Rule 1.7), which bars a representation directly adverse to a current client absent the required conditions and consent. The committee found a substantial probability of material adversity between the insurer the lawyer would take on and the current bail-bondsman client who owed the insurer funds.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.7 (conflict of interest; current clients); Washington RPC 1.7

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1540: Conflict Waiver Must Be Written
• WA Ethics Op. 1532: Faculty Lawyer Adverse to a State Employer

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=621

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1541
Year Issued: 1993
RPC(s): RPC 1.7
Subject: Conflict of interest; current client owes funds to potential client

The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning possible representation of an insurance company at the same time you represent another client who, while serving as a bail bondsman, failed to pay funds owing to the insurance company. The Committee was of the opinion that there is a substantial probability the representation of the insurance company would be materially adverse to the former bail bondman and would violate RPC 1.7.