Law Firm Representation Of Both Parties: Ethical Or Not?

Whether or not the same law firm can represent both parties in a legal dispute is a complex question. The consensus is that it constitutes a conflict of interest, and this should be avoided unless both parties waive it in writing. However, in some jurisdictions, this conflict is unwaivable. In criminal cases, it is generally unethical for one law firm to represent two clients charged with the same crime. In divorce cases, there is always a concurrent conflict, meaning a single attorney can never represent both parties.

Conflict of interest

Representing two parties with conflicting interests is a direct conflict of interest for a law firm. A lawyer cannot represent two opposing parties in the same litigation. A conflict of interest may arise when a lawyer is called upon to represent one client against another client or when a lawyer acts as an advocate in one matter against a current or former client.

A conflict of interest may also arise when a lawyer represents different clients in related matters, and one of the clients refuses to consent to the disclosure necessary for the other client to make an informed decision. In such cases, each party may have to obtain separate representation.

In criminal cases, it is generally unethical for one law firm to represent two clients charged with the same crime. A lawyer should also decline to represent more than one co-defendant due to the potential for conflict of interest.

However, there are ways to deal with conflicts of interest. A conflict of interest can generally be waived if the lawyer believes they can provide competent and diligent representation, the potential conflict is adequately described to the client, and the client gives informed consent. Both clients must agree after being fully aware of the conflict, and the lawyers must agree not to look at each other's files.

To avoid conflicts of interest, law firms should have a comprehensive computerized system to check for conflicts of interest. This system should retain the identity of all clients and adverse parties and be updated as the case proceeds.

Client confidentiality

In most jurisdictions, the short answer is no – the same law firm cannot represent two parties with adverse interests. This is due to the ethical duty of client confidentiality, which is a cornerstone of the attorney-client relationship. When a client engages a lawyer or a law firm, they develop a special relationship of trust and confidence. The client divulges sensitive information, knowing that it will be protected by the attorney and used only for the client's benefit.

When representing multiple clients, lawyers must be vigilant in maintaining client confidentiality. This becomes even more critical when the clients' interests diverge or become adverse. In such situations, a conflict of interest arises, and the lawyer must carefully consider whether they can continue to represent one or both clients. A conflict of interest exists when the lawyer's duties or interests owed to one client are compromised by their duties or interests owed to another client.

In the context of client confidentiality, a conflict may arise when a lawyer or law firm attempts to represent two parties with opposing interests. The lawyer would then be in a position where they cannot effectively represent one client without potentially divulging or using confidential information from the other. This would breach the duty of confidentiality and loyalty owed to both clients. As such, it is generally unethical and impractical for the same law firm to represent both parties in a dispute or transaction where their interests are directly opposed.

Written consent

In most jurisdictions, the same law firm cannot represent two clients with conflicting interests without the express consent of both parties. This is known as a 'conflict waiver' or 'written consent', and it is a formal agreement between the law firm and the clients.

The document will also outline the scope of the law firm's representation, including any limitations or restrictions that may apply. For example, the law firm may only represent one of the clients in a specific matter, or they may provide general advice to both parties but not represent them in a court of law.

To ensure the validity and enforceability of the written consent, it must be signed by all relevant parties, including the clients and the law firm. In some cases, independent legal advice may be recommended or required, meaning each client should seek advice from separate, independent lawyers before providing their consent. This helps to reinforce the understanding of the risks and implications and ensures that each client's interests are fully considered and protected.

Obtaining written consent is a critical step in ensuring transparency, ethical practice, and the protection of client interests. It allows the law firm to navigate potential conflicts of interest while providing legal services to both clients. However, it is important to note that even with written consent, the law firm must remain vigilant in maintaining confidentiality and avoiding any actions that may disadvantage either client.

Independent lawyer

In general, it is considered a conflict of interest for the same law firm to represent two opposing parties in a case. This is because the law firm would have access to privileged information from both sides, and it would be challenging for them to act in the best interests of both clients without bias.

In some jurisdictions, this conflict of interest can be waived if both parties provide written consent, acknowledging the potential risks and agreeing to the dual representation. However, even with a waiver, some law firms may choose to decline such representation to avoid any ethical concerns and maintain their professional integrity.

To address this conflict of interest, a concept known as a "Chinese wall" or "ethical wall" can be employed. This involves putting up ethical barriers within the law firm to separate the two sides of the case. Lawyers on one side of the case are restricted from communicating with the lawyers on the other side, and they are prohibited from accessing each other's files.

In certain situations, engaging an independent lawyer or law firm that has no connection to either party can be a more suitable option. An independent lawyer refers to an attorney or firm of attorneys who have not performed services for or represented any of the involved parties within a specified period, typically three years. By seeking an independent lawyer, clients can ensure that their legal representative has no prior obligations or loyalties that may interfere with their interests in the case.

The need for an independent lawyer often arises when government misconduct or criminal violations by high-ranking government officials are involved. In such cases, an independent counsel is appointed by the court, upon the request of the U.S. Attorney General, to investigate and prosecute these matters impartially, free from any potential conflicts of interest that regular prosecutors may face due to their government affiliations.

Criminal cases

In criminal cases, it is generally unethical for one law firm to represent two clients who are charged with the same crime. This is because the potential for a conflict of interest is so great that a lawyer should ordinarily decline to represent more than one co-defendant or opposing party in the same litigation.

For example, a lawyer cannot undertake the common representation of clients where contentious litigation or negotiations between them are imminent or contemplated. This is because a lawyer is required to be impartial between commonly represented clients, and representation of multiple clients is improper when it is unlikely that impartiality can be maintained.

In some states, substantive law provides that the same lawyer may not represent more than one defendant in a capital case, even with the consent of the clients. Under federal criminal statutes, certain representations by a former government lawyer are prohibited, despite the informed consent of the former client.

Additionally, in some states, decisional law limits the ability of a governmental client, such as a municipality, to consent to a conflict of interest. This means that, in practice, attorneys from one firm cannot represent different parties by building a "Chinese Wall" in the firm and isolating themselves as if they were from different firms.

Therefore, it is generally not possible for the same law firm to represent two opposing parties in a criminal case due to the high risk of a conflict of interest.

Frequently asked questions