Opinion ID: 704006
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Divided Loyalties: The Ethical Principles

Text: 242 The majority accurately notes that representation of two or more clients whose interests are best served by divergent litigation tactics presents a situation in which an attorney's loyalties may be pulled in different directions by his various clients. When such a situation arises, an attorney may be forced to choose the interest of one client at the expense of the interest of the other client, or the attorney may choose to do nothing and neglect the interests of both clients. See Geoffrey C. Hazard & W. William Hodes, 1 The Law of Lawyering Sec. 1.7:101 (2d ed. Supp.1992); Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.7, 1.9 (specifically addressing conflicts of interest arising from concurrent representation and serial representation). 243 Multiple representation situations, however, are not the only circumstances in which a conflict of interest may test an attorney's duty of loyalty. A lawyer's duty of loyalty may also be compromised when his own interests diverge from his client's interests. See Wolfram, supra, Sec. 7.1.3, at 317 (The principle of loyalty runs throughout conflicts thinking but is most prominent in the areas of simultaneous conflicts and conflicts involving the lawyer's personal interests.). In fact, the general rule against conflicts of interest provides that [a] lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client or to a third person, or by the lawyer's own interests. Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.7(b); see also Wolfram, supra, Sec. 7.1.2, at 315 (describing how an older version of the rules governing conflicts deal[t] with two central situations--when a lawyer's personal interests clash with those of a client and when a lawyer represents at the same time clients with differing interests). This potential for a conflict rooted in the attorney's self-interest is so severe that the Model Rule of Professional Conduct 1.8 is devoted almost entirely to prohibitions and restrictions aimed at preventing such conflicts. 15 The reason for these rules is clear. Just as an attorney's loyalty may be pulled in different directions by clients' divergent interests, an attorney's loyalty can be sorely tested when his own self-interest runs counter to the interests of his client. 244 Thus, the majority's attempt to draw the Cuyler line at multiple representation is ill-considered, for there is no logical reason why the distinction could not be used to classify all conflicts (including those involving the attorney's self-interest) as multiple representations. Simply put, there is no intuitive reason why the Cuyler line should be drawn at conflicts where the interests of only third parties cause the divergence facing the attorney, as distinguished from conflicts where the interest of the attorney himself causes the divergence that he confronts. Indeed, there is a powerful intuitive reason why, in some situations, that line should not be (and has not been) drawn there. There are exceptional conflicts involving the attorney's self-interest that, human nature being what it is, are far more likely to impair the lawyer's ability to satisfy his duty of loyalty to his client than are the more ordinary conflicts between clients. 245