Opinion ID: 4508714
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 7, which provide as follows:

Text: Rule 1.1. Competence A lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. Rule 1.7. Conflict of Interest: Current Clients (a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if: (1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or (2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer. (b) Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a client if: (1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client; [J-63-2019] - 17 (2) the representation is not prohibited by law; (3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal; and (4) each affected client gives informed consent. Pa.R.P.C. 1.1, 1.7. To evaluate these claims by the ODC, we must first decide the nature of the representation that existed between Respondent and Curley, Schultz and Spanier during the time period immediately before and during their grand jury testimony. Curley, Schultz and Spanier insist that Respondent represented them in their individual capacities without limitation. Respondent, in contrast, posits that she represented them only in a representative capacity in their roles as employees and representatives of Penn State. We begin with Respondent’s testimony at the evidentiary hearing before the Hearing Committee, where she offered the following testimony regarding the events leading to her decision to accompany Curley and Schultz at the grand jury for their interviews and testimony: A. I – I did explain that Tim could have a personal attorney go to go with him to the grand jury, ... and Graham said, Well, Cynthia, you go with him, you can go with him, you go with him. And I said, well, yes, but I can't be his personal attorney because I'm general counsel, and I said - - and I said to him, I said, You know, Tim, that if I go with you, nothing that you say would be confidential, that – and – and I know that the testimony has been I said I have to tell the board of trustees, but I said, Just like we're talking here to Graham, Graham could know, the board of trustees could know, and I said to him, you, If you want a personal attorney, you know, just call someone. He said, I don't know any lawyers. After that discussion, then he went downstairs to my office. Q. Did Mr. Curley understand the instructions you gave him, based on your understanding? [J-63-2019] - 18