Advisory Opinion: 1651

Year Issued: 1996

RPC(s): RPC 1.1; 1.4; 1.6; 1.7(a)(2); 1.7(b)(2); 1.8(b); 1.9; 1.13; 1.15; 2.1

Subject: Conflict of interest; representation of minor and parent after dependency action begun against parent

The Committee reviewed your inquiry concerning a situation in which you had established an attorney-client relationship with both a father and a minor daughter regarding a medical malpractice claim arising out of substantial injuries to the minor daughter. Subsequently, the Department of Social Services initiated a dependency action against the father and stepmother [in which the stepmother was found to have abused the child, which led to the medical treatment at issue], and the father is represented by a separate counsel in that matter. That proceeding was apparently terminated without any formal action being taken. The father now has directed you to take no further action with regard to the minor child's injuries.

The Committee concluded that RPC 1.7(a)(2), 1.7(b)(2), 1.8(b), 1.9(a) and (b) and 1.15(c) would prohibit you from continuing to represent either the father or the minor child without either a court order or written consent in compliance with RPC 1.7.

Further, the Committee was of the opinion that RPC 1.1, 1.4(a) and (b), 1.6(a), 1.13(a) and (b), 1.15(d) and 2.1 places an obligation on you to seek the appointment of a guardian ad litem to provide for the minor child's protection and to allow the minor child to adequately act in her own interests; and through whom the attorney can independently communicate with the minor child in withdrawing as her attorney. The Committee was further of the opinion that pursuant to RPC l.6(b), you may disclose the facts reasonably necessary to prevent the father from committing further criminal conduct, if any.

Finally, the Committee directed me to call to your attention the requirements of RCW 26.44.030 through RCW 26.44.060, or other applicable law.

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.