"
MARYLAND STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, INC.
COMMITTEE ON ETHICS
ETHICS DOCKET NO. 1988-95
Conflicts: Propriety of Attorney Handling a Personal Injury Case Where Client's Insurer is Represented by Counsel Representing Attorney's Wife in a Pending Divorce Case
Your letter indicates that you have been referred a client who is the driver of an automobile involved in an accident. The owner of the vehicle was a passenger in that automobile at the time of the accident. Suit was filed by the owner and your prospective client against the operator and owner of the second vehicle. The owner, driver, and passenger in the second vehicle have filed suit against your prospective client and the owner of the first vehicle. The law firm which originally represented your prospective client and the owner of the automobile has referred the case of the driver to you for representation. You ask whether you would be ethically permitted to represent the driver because the law firm representing the insurer of your prospective client and the owner of the first vehicle also represents your estranged wife in a pending divorce case.
It is the Committee's opinion that Rule 1.7 (b) would apply to your situation. That Rule reads as follows:
Rule 1.7 (b) Conflict of Interest: General Rule
(b) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client or to a third person, or by the lawyer's own interest, unless:
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected; and
(2) the client consents after consultation.
It is the Committee's opinion, that you must make the determination whether your representation of the client will be materially limited by your own interests unless Subsections 1 and 2 are both met. The Committee is uncertain what effect your relationship with your wife's law firm would have on your ability to represent your prospective client. The Comment to Rule 1.7 states that ""loyalty to a client is also impaired when a lawyer cannot consider, recommend or carry out an appropriate course of action for the client because of the lawyer's other responsibilities or interests."" It further states ""The critical questions are the likelihood that a conflict will eventuate, and if it does, whether it will materially interfere with the lawyer's independent professional judgment in considering alternatives or foreclose courses of action that reasonably should be pursued on behalf of the client."" The client may consent to representation notwithstanding any potential conflict, however, full disclosure must be given in order for him to consent.
Provided you follow the mandate of Rule 1.7, it is the opinion of the Committee that your representation of your prospective client would be ethically permissible.
"