Model Rule 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients

When it applies

This comes up whenever a lawyer or firm considers taking on a new matter that touches an existing client, such as suing one client on behalf of another, representing co-parties with differing interests, or taking positions that could undercut another client elsewhere. On the MPRE, it's tested heavily through fact patterns involving suing a current client in an unrelated matter, multiple representation in litigation or transactions, and lawyers whose personal interests (financial, familial, or otherwise) might color their judgment. Business transactions between lawyer and client are governed specifically by Rule 1.8.

What the rule requires

• A lawyer must not represent a client if doing so is directly adverse to another current client, unless the exception conditions are satisfied.
• A lawyer must not represent a client if there's a significant risk the representation will be materially limited by responsibilities to another client, a former client, a third party, or by the lawyer's personal interest.
• Even with a waivable conflict, the lawyer must reasonably believe competent and diligent representation can be provided to each affected client.
• The representation must not be prohibited by law.
• If clients are asserting claims against each other in the same litigation or proceeding, the conflict cannot be waived no matter the consent obtained.
• Each affected client must give informed consent, confirmed in writing, to proceed despite the conflict.

Exceptions

• Concurrent conflicts may be waived if the lawyer reasonably believes she can competently and diligently represent each client, the representation isn't barred by law, the representation does not involve one client asserting a claim against another client whom the lawyer also represents in the same litigation or proceeding, and each gives informed consent confirmed in writing.
• Some conflicts are considered non-consentable regardless of client consent, particularly where the lawyer would represent both clients on opposing sides of the same proceeding.

How the MPRE tests Model Rule 1.7

• Students often forget that some conflicts cannot be waived by consent at all, especially where the lawyer would represent clients litigating directly against each other in the same case. By contrast, suing a current client in an unrelated matter is directly adverse but can be consented to.
• MPRE questions test whether the lawyer 'reasonably believes' competent representation is possible – an objective standard the lawyer must actually satisfy, not just assert.
• Consent must be 'informed' and 'confirmed in writing' – oral consent or vague disclosure is insufficient, and students may overlook the writing requirement.
• Personal interest conflicts (financial, sexual, familial) are frequently missed because students focus only on adversity between two clients and forget the lawyer's own interests count too.