Advisory Opinion: 1028

Year Issued: 1986

RPC(s): RPC 1.7

Subject: Conflict of interest; lawyer representing parent in tort case where child may have loss of consortium claim

The Committee considered your inquiry regarding the potential conflict of interest raised by interpretations of Ueland v. Pengo Hydra-Pull Corp. The Committee was of the opinion that a lawyer representing a parent in a case in which adult children might have a claim for loss of consortium would be under no obligation to contact the adult children and advise them of their rights. If, on the other hand, they were minor children, the Committee was of the opinion that the lawyer would be obligated to have a guardian ad litem appointed to protect the minor children's interests. The guardian ad litem could, under appropriate circumstances, consent to the lawyer representing both the parent and the minor children, or could obtain independent representation for the minor children. The Committee was of the opinion that if the minor child determined not to pursue the claim, the lawyer should obtain that advice in writing. To the extent that the parents' and the children's interests conflicted, the Committee was of the opinion that the lawyer would have to comply with RPC 1.7.

Advisory Opinions are provided for the education of the Bar and reflect the opinion of the Committee on Professional Ethics (CPE) or its predecessors. Advisory Opinions are provided pursuant to the authorization granted by the Board of Governors, but are not individually approved by the Board and do not reflect the official position of the Bar association. Laws other than the Washington State Rules of Professional Conduct may apply to the inquiry. The Committee's answer does not include or opine about any other applicable law other than the meaning of the Rules of Professional Conduct.