Can a prosecutor's office collecting child support represent two parents seeking support from the same parent when there may not be enough money for both?

Plain-English summary

The committee considered whether a prosecuting attorney's office, charged by statute under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act with bringing support enforcement actions against non-custodial parents, could represent two parties trying to collect child support from one common parent. A conflict might exist if there were not sufficient funds to pay both claiming parents' claims in full.

After considerable discussion, the committee determined by a 9-0 vote that the prosecutor could not undertake the representation unless the prosecutor reasonably believed the representation would not adversely affect the representation of the other client, and each client consents in writing after full disclosure of the material facts relating to the common representation and the advantages and risks involved, as required by RPC 1.7(b).

The committee added that the proposed letters to clients submitted with the inquiry did not provide sufficient information for the client to give knowing consent to the multiple representation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1985, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 a child-support prosecutor represent two claimants seeking support from the same parent?

A: Only under conditions. The committee concluded 9-0 that the office could not undertake the representation unless it reasonably believed it would not adversely affect either client and each client consented in writing after full disclosure under RPC 1.7(b).

Q: What triggered the conflict concern?

A: The risk that there would not be sufficient funds to pay the entire claims of both claiming parents, so the two claimants' interests could diverge.

Q: Were the office's proposed consent letters adequate?

A: No. The committee said the proposed letters to clients did not provide sufficient information for the client to give knowing consent to the multiple representation.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies RPC 1.7(b), Washington's rule on conflicts arising from a lawyer's responsibilities to another client (the analog of Model Rule 1.7). The committee read it to require both a reasonable belief that the joint representation would not adversely affect either client and each client's written, fully informed consent. It also tied the validity of consent to the adequacy of the disclosure in the office's proposed client letters.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 1.7 (concurrent conflicts of interest)
• Washington RPC 1.7(b) (conflict from responsibilities to another client; informed written consent)

Statutes:

• Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (the statutory basis for the prosecutor's support-enforcement role, as described by the committee)

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 906: when a lawyer's spouse represents the adverse party
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1016: state-paid guardian ad litem and conflicts

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=27

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 916
Year Issued: 1985
RPC(s): RPC 1.7(b)
Subject: Conflict of interest; prosecutor collecting child support on behalf of two parties from one parent

The Committee discussed your inquiry concerning whether a prosecuting attorney's office, charged by statute with the obligation to bring support enforcement actions under the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act against non-custodial parents, could represent two parties attempt to collect child support from one common parent, wherein a conflict might exist if there were not sufficient funds to pay the entire claims of both claiming parents. After considerable discussion, the Committee determined by a 9-0 vote that a prosecutor could not undertake the representation unless the prosecutor reasonably believed the representation would not adversely affect the representation of the other client, and each client consents in writing after a full disclosure of the material facts relating to the common representation and the advantages and risks involved, as required by RPC 1.7(b). The Committee was further of the opinion that the proposed letters to clients submitted by you do not provide sufficient information for the client to give knowing consent to such multiple representation.