Informal Opinion Number: 980011

QUESTION: Attorney represents two plaintiffs in the same matter. Opposing counsel has suggested that one of the plaintiffs may be brought in as a third party defendant, and that Attorney would then have a conflict of interest. Attorney fully explained the advantages and disadvantages of being represented by the same attorney, prior to employment. Both plaintiffs have waived any conflict. Attorney insisted that the waiver be in writing and advised the plaintiffs to seek the advice of counsel. Both plaintiffs declined to obtain independent counsel and provided the waivers to Attorney. ANSWER: Based upon the information Attorney has provided, it appears that the present conflict is waivable under Rule 1.7(a)(1), and that Attorney’s clients have effectively done so. Therefore, Attorney does not have an obligation to withdraw at this time. Under the circumstances of this situation, a direct adversity could develop, which would be unwaivable, and Attorney would have an obligation to withdraw. This opinion does not, in any way, affect the ability of the court to rule on a motion to disqualify.

Informal Opinions are ethics advisory opinions issued by the Office of Legal Ethics Counsel to members of the Bar about Rule 4 (Rules of Professional Conduct), Rule 5 (Complaints and Proceedings Thereon), and Rule 6 (Fees to Practice Law) pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 5.30(c). Written summaries of select Informal Opinions are published for informational purposes as determined by the Advisory Committee of the Supreme Court of Missouri pursuant to Rule 5.30(c). Informal opinion summaries are advisory in nature and are not binding. These opinions are published as an educational service and do not constitute legal advice.

To request an Informal Opinion, please visit: http://mo-legal-ethics.org/for lawyers/requesting-an-informal-advisory-opinion/.

© Copyright 2025