Can a firm sue someone its lawyer once defended on a DWI charge, when the new auto-accident case arises from related facts?

Plain-English summary

The committee understood the facts to be that the inquiring lawyer represented clients in a lawsuit arising from an automobile accident, and that another lawyer in the office had previously represented the opposing party on a DWI charge.

The committee concluded that the prior representation of the defendant was substantially related to the present lawsuit. Because of that relationship, under RPC 1.9 the firm could not continue the representation of the plaintiffs without the consent of the former client after full disclosure and consultation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1986, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. RPC 1.9 on duties to former clients was later renumbered and amended. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 firm sue a defendant another firm lawyer once represented on a related charge?

A: Not without consent. The committee concluded that the prior DWI representation was substantially related to the auto-accident suit, so under RPC 1.9 the firm could not continue representing the plaintiffs without the former client's consent after full disclosure and consultation.

Q: Did it matter that a different lawyer in the office handled the prior case?

A: The committee treated the conflict as the firm's, framing the bar in terms of whether "your firm" could continue the representation, not just the individual lawyer.

Q: What would have allowed the firm to proceed?

A: The committee said the firm could proceed only with the consent of the former client after full disclosure and consultation.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Washington RPC 1.9 as it stood in 1986, the rule on duties to a former client (corresponding to Model Rule 1.9). The committee applied its substantial-relationship test, finding the firm's prior DWI defense of the defendant substantially related to the later auto-accident suit against him, which triggered the consent requirement.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Washington RPC 1.9 (duties to former clients; substantially related matters), corresponding to Model Rule 1.9.

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 975: suing a former client in an unrelated matter
• WSBA Ethics Op. 968: representing someone harmed by a former client
• WSBA Ethics Op. 962: a former-client conflict between adverse claimants to a death claim

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=93

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 982
Year Issued: 1986
RPC(s): RPC 1.9
Subject: Conflict of interest; representation of plaintiff in auto accident case against defendant law firm previously represented on DWI charge

The Committee understands the facts in your inquiry to be that you represent clients in a law suit growing out of an automobile accident. Another lawyer in your office previously had represented the opposing party on a DWI charge. The Committee was of the opinion that the prior representation of the defendant is substantially related to the present law suit and therefore, pursuant to RPC 1.9 your firm could not continue the representation of the plaintiffs without consent of the former client after full disclosure and consultation.