Also known as:materially limits · materially limited · materially limiting
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A circumstance creating a concurrent conflict of interest when a lawyer's duties to one client, a former client, a third person, or the lawyer's own interests create a significant risk of compromising the lawyer's ability to provide competent and diligent representation to another client.
Sources & Authorities· 2 primary sources
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Model Codes
Course Outlines
How it applies
Common Examples
2
Joint Representation of Competitors
Riley jointly represents Horizon Wireless and MetroCell in drafting a tower-sharing agreement. Horizon privately asks Riley to embed technical provisions that will give Horizon superior coverage while appearing neutral. Riley realizes this request would skew coverage and materially disadvantage MetroCell in future network deployment decisions. The request creates a significant risk that Riley's representation of MetroCell will be materially limited by duties to Horizon.
Firm Imputation of Personal Interest
A lawyer at CloudPeak Legal holds a personal interest that disqualifies the lawyer from representing NovaBit Labs. The remaining lawyers at the firm have no involvement in that personal interest. The disqualification does not present a significant risk of materially limiting the representation of NovaBit Labs by the remaining lawyers.
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
When does a lawyer's joint representation of two clients create a significant risk that duties to one will materially limit representation of the other?+
A concurrent conflict arises when clients in the same matter hold directly opposing positions on core terms such as debt levels, governance rights, or risk allocation. The lawyer cannot draft provisions advancing one client's objectives without constraining the ability to protect the other's interests. Even when clients share an overarching goal like completing a transaction, incompatible instructions on the governing documents create the required significant risk.
Does initial client consent eliminate the risk of material limitation in a joint representation?
+
Initial consent does not eliminate the risk. The lawyer must continuously assess whether new facts create a significant risk that duties to one client will materially limit representation of the other. When a client later requests hidden advantages that would disadvantage the co-client, the lawyer must obtain fresh informed consent or decline to proceed.
Supporting sources
How does the material-limitation standard apply when co-defendants blame each other for the underlying harm?+
When co-defendants in the same action take inconsistent positions on fault allocation, zealous representation of one requires emphasizing the other's greater responsibility. That dynamic creates a significant risk that the lawyer's representation of each client will be materially limited by duties to the other. The conflict exists even without formal cross-claims.
Supporting sources
What must a lawyer show to continue a joint representation after discovery reveals unequal fault among clients?+
The lawyer must reasonably believe competent and diligent representation remains possible for each client. Discovery showing one client's errors caused substantial liability for another defeats that reasonable belief. Informed consent obtained before the conflicting evidence emerged cannot cure the material-limitation risk once it materializes.
Supporting sources
Professional ResponsibilityConflicts of interest · Current client conflicts—multiple clients and joint representationMPREFoundational