Also known as: 1.7 · ABA Rule 1.7 · MRPC 1.7 · Model Rule 1.7
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule of professional conduct that prohibits a lawyer from representing a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict exists when the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client or when there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client, or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer. Representation may proceed despite the conflict only if the lawyer reasonably believes competent and diligent representation can be provided to each affected client, the representation is not prohibited by law, the representation does not involve assertion of a claim by one client against another client in the same litigation or proceeding before a tribunal, and each affected client gives informed consent confirmed in writing.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Rina Rahman represents a client in a contract dispute. Her law partner Riley Rivera previously advised the opposing party on the same transaction. Because the partner's prior work creates a direct adversity conflict under Rule 1.7 for Rivera alone, the firm cannot represent the new client while the two lawyers remain associated unless an exception applies.
Ruby Rivera leaves a firm after handling a matter for Redwood Bank. The remaining lawyers now wish to represent a party adverse to the bank in a substantially related case. The bank provides informed written consent after full disclosure, satisfying the waiver conditions of Rule 1.7 and allowing the firm to proceed.
Rowan Russell serves on the board of a legal services organization that is considering a policy position adverse to a current client of Russell's firm. Russell concludes that participating in the board decision would create a conflict with obligations to the client under Rule 1.7 and therefore recuses from the vote.
A concurrent conflict is nonconsentable when the lawyer cannot reasonably believe competent and diligent representation can be provided to each affected client or when the representation would require asserting a claim by one client against another in the same litigation. Direct adversity on the same core factual allegation, such as one client accusing another of misconduct while the lawyer must defend against that accusation, renders the conflict nonconsentable even with attempted waivers.
Supporting sources
No. Informed consent confirmed in writing is required but effective only if the lawyer can still reasonably believe competent and diligent representation is possible for each client and the other Rule 1.7(b) conditions are met. Changed facts such as discovery revealing unequal fault can defeat the reasonable-belief requirement even if consent was obtained earlier.
Supporting sources
Once a direct conflict arises that violates Rule 1.7, Rule 1.16(a)(1) requires the lawyer to withdraw from at least one representation because continued representation would result in a violation of the Rules. The lawyer must act on the lawyer's own initiative even without a court order.
Supporting sources
No. Representing a new client in a suit against an existing client creates direct adversity under Rule 1.7(a)(1) regardless of factual unrelatedness. The conflict precludes the representation unless all conditions of Rule 1.7(b) are satisfied, including informed consent from the current client.
Supporting sources