UPON THE REQUEST OF A MEMBER OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA BAR, THE ETHICS ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS RENDERED THIS OPINION ON THE ETHICAL PROPRIETY OF THE INQUIRER鈥橲 CONTEMPLATED CONDUCT. THIS COMMITTEE HAS NO DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY. LAWYER DISCIPLINE IS ADMINISTERED SOLELY BY THE SOUTH CAROLINA SUPREME COURT THROUGH ITS COMMISSION ON LAWYER CONDUCT.
Ethics Advisory Opinion 97-35
Attorney A represents a minority shareholder in a family owned corporation. Attorney A does not represent the corporation, and no part of his fee for representing the minority shareholder is paid by the corporation. The daughter of Attorney A's client is married to the president of the corporation, although divorce proceedings have commenced. The daughter, dissatisfied with her current attorney, has asked Attorney A to represent her in the divorce proceedings.
QUESTION:
May Attorney A represent the daughter of his client in the divorce proceedings without violating the conflict of interest rules?
SUMMARY:
Attorney A's representation of his client's daughter will not violate Rule 1.7, as there are no facts indicating that the interests of his client and her daughter are directly adverse or that Attorney A's representation will be materially limited by his responsibilities to his client..
OPINION:
The general conflict of interest rules are contained at Rule 1.7 of the South Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 1.7(a) provides that a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client will be directly adverse to another client unless the lawyer reasonably believes that the representation will not adversely affect the relationship with the other client and each client consents after consultation.
Rule 1.7(b) further provides that a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibility to another client or third party unless the lawyer reasonably believes that his representation of the other client will not be adversely affected and both clients consent after consultation. See Anonymous Member of 91黑料爆料, 315 S.C. 141, 142-143, 432 S.E.2d 467, 468(1993).
Based on the factual scenario presented, there would appear to be no conflict of interest. Pursuant to Rule 1.7(a), it does not appear, at this time, that Attorney A's representation of his client's daughter will be directly adverse to the client. Attorney A's duty to his client is to protect her personal interests. Attorney A does not represent the corporation and, therefore, owes no duty of loyalty to it. The Comment to Rule 1.7 provides that paragraph (a) "applies only when the representation of one client would be directly adverse to the other." Attorney A has represented that the interests of the client and her daughter are the same and will not conflict.
Attorney A should be mindful of the fact that circumstances may occur in the future which may alter this result.
In order for Rule 1.7(b) to be triggered, two conditions must exist. First, Attorney A must be found to have a responsibility to a client or third person. Second, it must be found that this responsibility is one which would materially limit the loyalty of the attorney to the client in the proposed representation. The first condition is easily met. In regards to the second condition, the committee has not been presented with any facts indicating that Attorney A's responsibilities to his client or third party will materially limit his representation of her daughter.