Opinion ID: 389571
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Defining Adequate Representation.

Text: 51 Of course, saying that there will be situations in which it is appropriate for an attorney to represent a client who is suing another client is much easier than defining when the representation will meet DR5-105(C)'s adequacy requirements. Under both Canon 6 and DR5-105(C), the courts have consistently said that representation is unavailable where the public interest is impaired or where there is a great likelihood that one party will be prejudiced. 16 Examples of such cases include a government attorney's representation of a client who is suing the government, 17 and an attorney's representation of both the plaintiff and the defendant in a particular suit. 18 We believe the public interest and prejudice language used on occasion by the courts is merely another way of saying that adequate representation could not be provided in those cases. 52 None of the cases, however, sets forth the specific factors to use in determining when the representation is adequate. In determining whether it is obvious that an attorney can represent adverse parties, the court should look at factors such as: the nature of the litigation; the type of information to which the lawyer may have had access; whether the client is in a position to protect his interests or know whether he will be vulnerable to disadvantage as a result of the multiple representation; the questions in dispute (e. g., statutory construction versus disputes over facts) and whether a government body is involved. 53 Thus, the court will undoubtedly look at some of the factors which are considered in deciding whether representation against a former client is appropriate. See Gas-a-Tron of Arizona v. Union Oil of California, 534 F.2d 1322 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 861, 97 S.Ct. 164, 50 L.Ed.2d 139 (1976); T. C. Theater Corp. v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc., 113 F.Supp. 265, 268 (S.D.N.Y.), reh. den., 125 F.Supp. 233 (1953). 54