Can a freelance contract lawyer work for two lawyers who frequently oppose each other in family law cases?

Plain-English summary

The committee addressed a lawyer's proposal to freelance for two different attorneys who frequently work against one another on family law cases. On the facts presented, the committee concluded the proposal was permissible under the Rules of Professional Conduct, understanding that the contract lawyer would not work on any cases in which the two attorneys were representing adverse parties.

The committee attached two qualifications. The lawyer would have to guard against any disclosure of confidences or secrets obtained while associating with either lawyer. And the committee said that if any services the lawyer performed for one of the lawyers would materially limit the lawyer's representation of a client of the other lawyer, the lawyer could not so act under RPC 1.7(b).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1986, before the 2006 revisions to the Washington Rules of Professional Conduct. RPC 1.7 on conflicts of interest 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 contract lawyer take work from two lawyers who often oppose each other?

A: On these facts, yes. The committee found the arrangement permissible, understanding that the contract lawyer would not work on any cases in which the two attorneys represented adverse parties.

Q: What confidentiality limit did the committee identify?

A: The committee cautioned that the lawyer would have to guard against any disclosure of confidences or secrets obtained while associating with either lawyer.

Q: When would RPC 1.7(b) bar the work?

A: The committee said that if any services performed for one lawyer would materially limit the contract lawyer's representation of a client of the other lawyer, the lawyer could not so act under RPC 1.7(b).

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Washington RPC 1.7(b) as it stood in 1986, the conflict-of-interest rule addressing representations that may be materially limited by other responsibilities (corresponding to Model Rule 1.7). The committee applied it to a contract lawyer associating with two lawyers who frequently oppose each other, permitting the arrangement so long as the lawyer avoided shared-adverse cases, protected confidences, and did not take work that would materially limit a client's representation.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Washington RPC 1.7(b) (conflict where representation may be materially limited), corresponding to Model Rule 1.7.

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 911: a contract attorney working for multiple firms and conflicts
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1022: imputed disqualification of a lateral lawyer who gained no confidences
• WSBA Ethics Op. 835: office sharing and client confidences

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=96

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 985
Year Issued: 1986
RPC(s): RPC 1.7(b)
Subject: Contract attorney; employment by lawyers who frequently appear as opposing counsel

The Committee was of the opinion that your proposal to freelance for two different attorneys who frequently work against one another on family law cases, as presented by you, is permissible under the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Committee understands that you would not be working on any cases in which the two attorneys were representing adverse parties. The Committee also wanted to caution you that you would have to guard against any disclosure of confidences or secrets which you happened to obtain while associating with either lawyer. In addition, the Committee was of the general opinion that if any services you perform for one of the lawyers would materially limit your representation of a client of the other lawyer, then you could not so act under RPC 1.7(b).