Opinion 1267

The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning the agreement signed by your former client consenting to your representation of himself and a corporation owned by your wife, and his present objection to your continued representation of the corporation in a dispute between them. The Committee was of the opinion that at the time the agreement was reached between your two clients, you were acting as an intermediary as that term is used in RPC 2.2. However, now that you are no longer representing the party adverse to your wife's corporation, RPC 1.9 applies.

The Committee was of the opinion that a lawyer may not prospectively enter into a consent agreement in which a client waives any future objection to continued representation of an adverse party, even where the conflict was specifically identified in advance and the client had the opportunity for consultation. The Committee reached this decision with the assumption that you had fully complied with the rules in good faith, but was of the opinion that a lawyer must have the consent of a former client to representation of an adverse interest at the time the conflict arises.

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.