Since becoming bar counsel in June 2012, I’ve handled 4,421 ethics inquiries. By far, the most common inquiry topic has been conflicts of interest. Questions relating to conflicts have accounted for slightly more than half of all inquiries, with “former client” conflicts constituting the largest subset within the category. Common questions:
- Can I take a case against a former client?
- I represent Buyer. I’ve known Seller for years. She wants me to represent her. Can I?
- For the past 10 years or so, I’ve represented a couple. Business stuff, some trusts, a small PI claim, nothing that either doesn’t know about. They’re getting divorced. Can I represent Wife?
This morning I realized that I needed to post today. I was too busy watching the early coverage of The British Open to concentrate, so I figured I’d cheat with a “Throwback Thursday” post.
In between putts & wayward drives, I wondered what issues bar counsel types were dealing with 50 years ago. So, I searched “legal ethics 1967.” I figured I’d find something simple, and post “here’s what was going on a long time ago.”
The top result was a compendium of the ethics opinions issued by the Indiana State Bar Association in 1967.
Opinion 1 is the genesis of this post’s title.
(Apparently, in 1967, lawyers had yet to resolve to use 37 words when 1 would do. So, here’s the opinion, in its entirety.)
Opinion No. 1 of 1967
Lawyer Not Forever Barred From
Taking Case Against A Former Client
The Committee was asked its opinion by an attorney whose present
client wished to bring suit against a person who at one time had
been a client of the attorney.
Mr. Henry S. Drinker, in his book Legal Ethics, at page 112, stated:
“One may sue a former client if his representation is ended and. the
matter does not involve confidential communications.” An attorney
is not forever barred from suing a former client, so long as the present
matter was not connected with, and did not arise out of, the former
employment, and so long as there is no breach of confidential information
obtained during the former attorney-client relationship.
The opinion mirrors today’s rule.
Rule 1.9 prohibits a lawyer from representing a person:
- in the same or a substantially related matter in which the lawyer represented a former client and in which the person’s interests are materially adverse to the interests of a former client, unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.
Even if the matters are not the same or substantially related, Rule 1.9(c) prohibits a lawyer from using or revealing information relating to the representation of a former client.
Nothing has changed.
Next, I wondered what Vermont’s hot topics in ethics were back in the day. The Vermont Bar Association publishes advisory ethics opinions. The earliest available are from 1978. (As regular reader Hal Miller knows, it was a year that shall forever live in infamy on this blog. More on that tomorrow.)
Opinion 78-04 concluded that it is improper to represent both buyer & seller in real estate transaction. I agree with the conclusion.
Opinion 78-03 concluded that it is improper for a lawyer who has represented a couple to represent one in a divorce if the issues in the divorce are substantially related to the former representation of the couple. Again, I agree. Comment 3 to Rule 1.9 addresses this very question.
I’m not complaining. If you have questions about a potential conflict, don’t hesitate to call, text, or e-mail. I bring it up only because I’m struck by the fact that conflicts always have been and likely always will be the most common, but trickiest, ethics issue confronted by lawyers.
Actually, let’s be honest: I bring it up mainly I needed to post a blog about something- anything! – to drive traffic towards tomorrow’s #fiveforfriday quiz.