Conflicts of Interest

A concurrent conflict exists if (1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client, or (2) there is a significant risk that the representation will be materially limited by responsibilities to another client, a former client, a third person, or the lawyer's own personal interests.

Direct adversity exists when a lawyer acts directly against the interests of a current client, such as representing one client in a suit against another current client, even in an unrelated matter. Mere economic competition between clients is not direct adversity.

A material-limitation conflict exists when there is a significant risk that the lawyer's representation of a client will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client, a third person, or by the lawyer's own personal interests.

For material-limitation conflicts, only a significant risk that the representation will be materially limited is required; an actual adverse effect need not yet have occurred. The risk must be more than a remote or theoretical possibility.

(1) The lawyer reasonably believes she can provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client; (2) the representation is not prohibited by law; (3) the representation does not involve one client asserting a claim against another client in the same litigation or proceeding before a tribunal; and (4) each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.

A nonconsentable conflict is one that cannot be waived even with client consent, because one of Rule 1.7(b)'s threshold conditions cannot be met — typically that the lawyer cannot reasonably believe she can competently represent each client, the representation is prohibited by law, or it involves clients on opposite sides of the same litigation.