Opinion ID: 1392498
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: ER 1.7(b)

Text: ER 1.7(b) forbids a lawyer from representing 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, unless: (1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected; and (2) the client consents after consultation. The Committee found that Owens did not properly advise Pontillo of the nature of the reaffirmation agreement or that the debt would be discharged without listing it in the bankruptcy petition. The Commission found that representing Pontillo on both the dissolution and bankruptcy, without informing her in writing of the potential conflict of interest presented, was a violation of ER 1.7(b). Comm'n Rep. at 5. Owens argues that the Commission improperly required written notice of a potential conflict of interest. He also claims that Pontillo consented to the representation after consultation. The Bar agrees that no writing is required, but argues that Owens did not properly consult with Pontillo within the meaning of ER 1.7(b). Owens is correct that ER 1.7(b) does not require that a client be informed of a conflict of interest in writing. While a writing might have supported Owens's position, we will not find a violation merely because there was no writing. We must first decide whether Owens's representation of Pontillo was materially limited by his own interests. It clearly was. Owens, as a creditor, wanted to be paid. But as Pontillo's lawyer, he should have advised her to discharge her debt to him. An interested lawyer may still represent a client when the client consents after consultation. [4] Owens claims that Pontillo refused to list the debt on the bankruptcy petition and that he told her it could be discharged. He also claims that the draft petition was a valid reaffirmation agreement. But there are guidelines that must be followed to establish a valid reaffirmation. 11 U.S.C. § 524(c) (1993). The agreement must contain a clear and conspicuous statement advising the debtor that the agreement may be rescinded before discharge and a declaration by the debtor's lawyer that the agreement does not impose an undue hardship on the debtor. 11 U.S.C. § 524(c)(2), (c)(3)(B) (1993). Owens did not satisfy these requirements. Nor could he have declared that reaffirmation would not have imposed an undue hardship  the debt was greater than Pontillo's annual income. [5] To consent after consultation, Pontillo needed to have understood the ramifications of a reaffirmation agreement and her rights under it. The failure to fully consult with the client on the nature of a reaffirmation agreement, as required by the Bankruptcy Code, precludes a client from consenting to representation by an interested lawyer. See In re Symes, 174 B.R. 114, 117 (Bankr. D.Ariz. 1994) (when lawyer is creditor, and given the special attorney-client relationship, reaffirmation agreement requires detailed notice and disclosure and that client be told in plain, conspicuous, written terms that debt is dischargeable). Because he failed to properly consult with Pontillo, Owens violated ER 1.7(b).