Agreement To Waive Conflict Of Interest

In other words, an agreement in which a client consents to a type of conflict with which the client is familiar until now is regularly considered effective, at least after the comment – which does not engage any court. On the other hand, the opinion states that an indeterminate consent agreement that is not in a position to adequately identify the types of conflicts that may be considered at a later date, based on facts and circumstances, b) Notwithstanding the existence of a simultaneous conflict of interest referred to in point a), a lawyer may represent a client if: the declarations of prior waiver have been quashed , if they are too general and are involved by an undecided customer. For example, correspondence with non-lawyer employees of the client at odds (summarizing claims) was found to be insufficient to ensure “consultation” or “full disclosure.” Florida Ins. Guaranty Ass`n, Inc. v. Carey Canada, Inc., 749 F. Supp. 255 (S.D. Fla.

1990); See Marketti v. Fitzsimmons, 373 F. Supp. 637 (W.D. Wisc. 1974) (where the client is a local union, mere knowledge of the second representation is not sufficient to make a waiver). Similarly, a permanent dismissal of the lawyer from “all the rights, duties, duties and privileges that accrue to his [former] employment,” combined with the lawyer`s agreement, “his pro and con services, as he sees fit” (despite the client`s relative sophistication) for the former client was deemed insufficient to justify the lawyer`s subsequent activity, including the disclosure of confidential information. In re Boone, 83 F. 944 (N.D. Calif. 1897).

Instead, according to the court, the release would only be effective if it were “positive, unequivocal and inconsistent with any other interpretation.” Id. at 956. In a recent decision, it was found that general prior authorization for all unrelated matters was not sufficient to waive adversity in litigation, unless it explicitly refers to “litigation. Worldspan, L.P. v. Sabre Group Holdings, Inc., 5 F. Supp. 2d 1356 (N.D. Ga. 1998). The current rule of the ABA 1.7 model and the current Colo. RPC 1.7 makes it even clearer that there are certain circumstances in which a client can never properly consent to the conflict of interest.

In particular, the rules allow lawyers to represent fully informed clients who have accepted in disputes only if (1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide each client concerned with competent and careful representation; (2) representation is not prohibited by law; and (3) representation does not involve the exercise of a client`s claim against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceedings before a court.

Comments are closed.