Opinion 968

You inquire whether having previously represented a client in a mental commitment hearing you could now represent a different party [in an action against the state for negligent release of the prior client] who was subsequently harmed by the actions of your previous client. The Committee was of the opinion that Rule 1.9 of the Rules of Professional Conduct would require that you could only undertake the representation of the new client with the consent of your previous client after full disclosure. The Committee was concerned, however, that obtaining such consent from your previous client could be detrimental to his interests, and therefore you should decline to undertake representation of the new client.

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.