Can a lawyer represent an injured plaintiff when the defendant is insured by an insurance company the lawyer's firm represents?

Plain-English summary

A law firm represents Insurance Company X in various coverage disputes and regulatory matters. A lawyer in the firm who does neither coverage nor regulatory work accepts a personal injury case arising from a traffic collision. The alleged tortfeasor provided the personal injury client with information at the scene indicating that Insurance Company X insured him. The question was whether the lawyer is prohibited from representing the injured party.

The committee answered yes, unless the requirements of RPC 1.7(a) and possibly RPC 1.7(b) are satisfied. Under RPC 1.7(a), a lawyer may not represent a client if the representation will be directly adverse to another client unless two additional requirements are met: first, the lawyer must in fact believe the representation will not affect the relationship with the other client (RPC 1.7(a)(1)); and second, both clients must consent in writing following consultation and full disclosure of the material facts (RPC 1.7(a)(2)). The committee added that if there is a long-standing relationship with one of the clients, the firm's responsibility to that client and the lawyers' personal interests in maintaining the relationship may implicate RPC 1.7(b). It noted that, under RPC 1.10, where a lawyer is precluded by RPC 1.7(a) or (b), the disqualification is imputed to all lawyers in the firm.

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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 states the consent and informed-consent requirements, so verify the current rule text before relying on it.

Common questions

Q: Is a lawyer barred from suing a defendant insured by the firm's insurer client?

A: The committee concluded the lawyer is prohibited unless the requirements of RPC 1.7(a), and possibly 1.7(b), are satisfied.

Q: What does RPC 1.7(a) require here?

A: The lawyer must in fact believe the representation will not affect the relationship with the insurer client, and both clients must consent in writing after consultation and full disclosure of the material facts.

Q: Does it matter that the lawyer does no coverage or regulatory work for the insurer?

A: Under RPC 1.10, the committee said, where a lawyer is precluded by RPC 1.7(a) or (b), the disqualification is imputed to all lawyers in the firm.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Washington RPC 1.7 (conflict of interest: directly adverse representation and material-limitation analysis), corresponding to ABA Model Rule 1.7, and RPC 1.10 (imputation of conflicts within a firm), corresponding to ABA Model Rule 1.10. The committee treated the insurer as a current client to whom the firm owed duties, so that a directly adverse personal injury matter required informed written consent from both clients and otherwise was imputed to the entire firm.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.7 (conflict of interest: current clients); Washington RPC 1.7(a), 1.7(b)
• ABA Model Rule 1.10 (imputation of conflicts); Washington RPC 1.10

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1867: Representing an Opposing Lawyer
• WA Ethics Op. 1465: Lawyer Adverse to Former Firm's Client
• WSBA Ethics Op. 990: Imputed Disqualification

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1081

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1887
Year Issued: 1999
RPC(s): RPC 1.7(a); 1.7(b); 1.10
Subject: Conflict of interest; lawyer wishes to represent injured party in tort case where opposing party is insured by insurance company also represented by lawyer's law firm

A law firm represents Insurance Company X in various coverage disputes and regulatory matters. A lawyer in the firm who does neither coverage nor regulatory work accepts a personal injury case arising from a traffic collision. The alleged tortfeasor provided the personal injury client with information at the scene of the collision indicating that Insurance Company X insured him.

Is the lawyer wishing to represent the injured party prohibited from doing so? Yes, unless the requirements of RPC 1.7(a) and possibly RPC 1.7(b) are satisfied. Under RPC 1.7(a), a lawyer may not represent a client if the representation will be directly adverse to another client, unless two additional requirements are met. First, the lawyer must, in fact, believe that the representation will not affect the relationship with the other client. RPC 1.7(a)(1). Second, both clients must consent in writing following consultation and a full disclosure of the material facts. RPC 1.7(a)(2). Third, if there is a long standing relationship with one of the clients, the firm’s responsibility to that client, as well as the personal interests of the lawyers in the firm in maintaining that relationship may implicate 1.7(b). Under RPC 1.10, where a lawyer is precluded from representation by virtue of RPC 1.7(a) or (b), the disqualification is imputed to all lawyers in the firm.