"
MARYLAND STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, INC.
COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
ETHICS DOCKET NO. 1987-43
Conflicts: Lawyers sharing office space and representing adversaries
The facts set forth in your inquiry are as follows. Attorney A subleases portions of his office space to two other attorneys, B and C. Attorneys, A, B and C each have their own secretaries, and the secretary for Attorney C normally acts as the receptionist. It appears from your inquiry that there is no partnership arrangement between Attorney A on one hand and Attorneys B and C on the other. Attorneys B and C simply pay rent to Attorney A. Furthermore, clients of all three attorneys use the same common area for waiting.
Attorney A represents Client ]No. 1 in a lawsuit for real estate commissions against Client No. 2, who is being represented by Attorney B. Both clients were informed of the arrangement between A and B concerning the office space, and, although it is not explicit in your inquiry, it appears as through neither of the clients objected to the arrangement. Your inquiry is whether there is any ethical problem arising out of the foregoing facts.
Rule 1.6 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct obligates an attorney to keep confidential all. information relating to the representation of the client, with certain exceptions not here pertinent. Rule 5.3 obligates an attorney to make reasonable efforts to insure that non-lawyers associated with the lawyer conduct themselves in a manner which is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer. Based on these two rules, the Committee sees no prima facie ethical violation with the office sharing arrangement which you describe. As long as each of the three attorneys and their secretaries protect the confidentiality of the attorney/client relationship, there will be no violation of the ethical rules. We believe that Rule 5.3 requires that each of the attorneys educate their secretaries and each implement procedures concerning the maintenance of the confidentiality of information regarding the clients.
With respect to the pending litigation between Client No. I (represented by Attorney A) and Client No. 2 (represented by Attorney B), the Committee believes that there is no violation of any ethical rules. Rule 1.7(a) prohibits lawyers within the same law firm from representing two respective clients in litigation against each other. However, because there is no partnership arrangement between Attorney A and Attorney B. Rule 1.7(a) is inapplicable.
Rule 1.7(b) may be applicable in that it provides that a lawyer should not represent a client if the representation may be materially limited by the lawyer's own interests. It is conceivable that Attorney B's status as a tenant of Attorney A could impact on his willingness to zealously advocate all proper positions on behalf of Client No. 2. It should be noted, however, that Rule 1.7(b) provides that even though a lawyer's own interest may be involved, the lawyer may continue to represent the client if (1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected by his own interests, and (2) the client consents after consultation. In your inquiry, it is implicit that the clients have consented after consultation. Furthermore, only Attorney B can answer the question as to whether his status as a sub-tenant of Attorney A will materially affect his representation of Client No. 2. If Attorney B is satisfied that his representation of Client No. 2 will not be materially and adversely affected, then, in view of the consent of Client No. 2, the Committee believes that there has been no ethical violation.
"