Also known as: MR 1.7(a)(2) · Rule 1.7(a)(2) · concurrent conflict of interest
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A basis for concurrent conflict of interest under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. Representation is prohibited when there is a significant risk that the lawyer's responsibilities to one or more clients will be materially limited by duties owed to another client, a former client, or a third person or by the lawyer's personal interest.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Michael Miller and Matthew Martinez retained the same lawyer to prepare a joint proposal for a utility contract. Each separately told the lawyer he expected priority access to limited future interconnection rights after the award. The lawyer recognized that advocating one client's priority would necessarily disadvantage the other in post-award negotiations.
Monica Morgan represented Crown Steel and its two subcontractors in a single action brought by the project owner. Discovery later showed one subcontractor's sequencing errors could shift substantial liability onto the general contractor. The lawyer could no longer reasonably believe she could provide competent and diligent representation to all three clients simultaneously.
A significant risk arises when clients' interests diverge on issues the lawyer must address, such as allocation of limited resources or blame for shared liability. Discovery revealing unequal fault among jointly represented defendants creates concrete adversity that prevents full advocacy for each client.
Supporting sources
Consent can cure the conflict only if the lawyer reasonably believes competent and diligent representation remains possible for each client. When discovery shows the clients' interests have diverged too far, the reasonable-belief requirement fails and consent cannot authorize continuation.
Supporting sources
Direct adversity occurs when one client's interests are immediately opposed to another's in the same matter. Material limitation under 1.7(a)(2) exists when duties to one client create a significant risk of compromising the lawyer's ability to represent another even without outright opposition.
Supporting sources
The lawyer must explain the nature of the conflict, the reasonably foreseeable ways the clients' interests could diverge, and the consequences of those divergences, including possible withdrawal. A generic statement that the clients share goals is insufficient when the lawyer knows of a specific strategy that could shift blame from one client to another.
Supporting sources