Can a firm represent a lawyer who is opposing the firm's own client in an unrelated matter?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned a conflict of interest arising from a firm's representation of an attorney who is a client. The question presented was whether the inquiring firm may represent an attorney where the attorney is personally, or vicariously, representing a third party with directly adverse interests to the defense client of the firm, and where the firm's representation of the attorney is wholly unrelated to the matter between the defense client and the third party.

The committee concluded that the representation is possible. It added, however, that under the facts presented the potential for material limitations of the representations exists, and that compliance with RPC 1.7(b) may be necessary.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1999, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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. Washington's RPC 1.7 (conflict of interest: current clients) was restructured in the 2006 revisions, including how it treats material-limitation conflicts and client consent, so verify the current rule before relying on it.

Common questions

Q: Can a firm represent a lawyer who is opposing the firm's own client in another, unrelated matter?

A: The committee concluded the representation is possible where it is wholly unrelated to the matter between the firm's client and the third party.

Q: What is the catch?

A: The committee said the facts present a potential for material limitations of the representations, and that compliance with RPC 1.7(b) may be necessary.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Washington RPC 1.7(b) (conflict of interest, material-limitation analysis), corresponding to ABA Model Rule 1.7. The committee did not find a per se bar; it located the issue in the potential for material limitation on the firm's representations and required compliance with RPC 1.7(b) where that potential exists.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

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

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1842: City Counsel, Mayor as Opponent
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1160: Conflict Cured by Consent
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1140: Lawyer for a Homeowners Association

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1060

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1867
Year Issued: 1999
RPC(s): RPC 1.7(b)
Subject: Conflict of interest; law firm representing lawyer who represents third party who is adverse to another client of law firm

I have been instructed by the Rules of Professional Conduct Committee to respond to your ethics inquiry #1867 concerning a conflict of interest regarding the representation of an attorney who is a client.

The Committee has reviewed your inquiry and determined the following:

The question presented is whether the inquiring firm may represent an attorney, where the attorney is personally, or vicariously, representing a third party with directly adverse interests to the defense client of the firm, and where the firm’s representation of the attorney is wholly unrelated to the matter between the defense client and the third party. The representation is possible. However, under the facts presented the potential for material limitations of the representations exist and compliance with RPC 1.7(b) may be necessary.