The attorney inquires as to whether he may continue representation of a client in a pending litigation which has reached the trial list stage, at which point a motion to join as a third-party defendant the bank which he represents in an unrelated matter is appropriate on the basis of the alleged forged endorsements. Except with the consent of his client after full disclosure, a lawyer shall not accept employment if the exercise of his professional judgment on behalf of his client will be or reasonably may be affected by his own financial business, property, or personal interests. If a lawyer is required to decline employment or to withdraw from employment under DR 5-105, no partner or associate of his or his firm may accept or continue such employment. It is not clear why the attorney, through his own clients, was not aware of the alleged forged endorsements at the outset and why he therefore did not anticipate the third-party question. Even if it could not have been anticipated, the attorney is faced with a problem of asserting on behalf of his defense clients the alleged forgery and payment by the bank, which bank is also a client for which the attorney has done considerable legal work and which he is presently defending in another unrelated forgery case.
Problems involving third-party actions can and do arise.
We believe that counsel should ask the court to be relieved from the trial of the case, and do not believe that the alternatives which counsel suggests would properly take care of the facts herein stated. To maintain public confidence in the bar, it is necessary not only to avoid actual wrongdoing, but even appearance of wrongdoing. The impropriety of taking a case against a former client is not based solely on necessity for disclosure of confidential communication. If the former client has any reason to feel aggrieved, the necessity of maintaining proper public relations for the bar and of avoiding the appearance of wrongdoing should cause the attorney to refuse to accept employment in a capacity which is adverse to the interests of the former client. The mere fact that under a prior retainer the attorney has advocated views of the law and facts different from those on which his present client rests his case will not ipso facto disqualify him.