Also known as: Rule 1.7 · 1.7 conflicts · current client conflict of interest · current-client conflicts
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A rule of professional conduct that bars a lawyer from representing a client when the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict exists if the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client or if 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, a third person, or the lawyer's own interests. 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 in the same litigation, and each affected client gives informed consent confirmed in writing.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Renee Rogers represents a manufacturing company in ongoing supplier contracts. A buyer of the company's parts asks Rogers to sue the company for breach of warranty on those same parts. The buyer and the company agree to waive the conflict after full disclosure, allowing Rogers to proceed with the new matter under the conditions of Rule 1.7.
Ravi Reddy serves on the board of a legal services organization while representing a corporate client in commercial litigation. The organization considers taking a position adverse to the corporate client. Reddy declines to participate in that decision because doing so would create a concurrent conflict under Rule 1.7.
Direct adversity arises when a lawyer would sue or take a position against a current client in litigation. The conflict is nonconsentable if the lawyer cannot reasonably believe competent and diligent representation remains possible for both clients or if one client asserts a claim against the other in the same proceeding.
The lawyer must first conclude that competent and diligent representation can be provided to each affected client. The lawyer must also confirm that the representation is not prohibited by law and does not involve one client asserting a claim against another in the same litigation.
No. The rule focuses on direct adversity or material limitation rather than possession of confidential information. Suing a current client creates an impermissible conflict even without confidential information about the disputed matter.
Withdrawal is required when new facts make it unreasonable for the lawyer to believe competent and diligent representation can continue for all clients. Informed consent obtained earlier does not authorize continuation once the reasonable-belief requirement of Rule 1.7(b)(1) fails.