<p>This question does not regard law school; rather, it regards practicing lawyers. </p>
<p>Is a lawyer allowed to represent one person, let’s say Person X, in one case in which they have been sued for workers compensation, and then allowed to represent somebody going against Person X in another case in which that somebody is suing Person X for compensation due to injuries sustained in a car accident? This is clearly a conflict of interest, but is it allowed?</p>
<p>Thanks for any replies.</p>
<p>The question illustrates the difference between doing something because you are allowed to and having it be a good idea.</p>
<p>I cannot answer your question - haven’t taken PR yet - although the lawyers on the board can probably give you a very, very detailed answer. There is no direct conflict of interest: the lawyer’s representation of Client X in the worker’s comp case is irrelevant to an unrelated car accident. However, I think it would be entirely stupid - what client is going to trust you when they talk to you one day about the worker’s comp issue and see you across the table the next day, asking for a settlement?</p>
<p>A COI could arise if Person X is very strapped for cash (i.e. let’s assume that insurance doesn’t take care of all of this) - in which case, the lawyer might encourage Person X to settle with his car-accident client and take a chance on the worker’s comp issue, so that his client gets paid. </p>
<p>This might be less of an issue with massive corporations, where some overlap in a big law firm is hard to avoid. However, when dealing with individuals in a small practice, this seems less than satisfactory. </p>
<p>Now, if you live in Wyoming and there’s only two lawyers within a day’s drive, fine. As I said though, even if it is, somehow, allowed, why get yourself into that mess?</p>
<p>And here is a lawyer answer: facts given are insufficient to determine the issue.</p>
<p>General rule: a lawyer cannot represent someone in a case when the adverse party is the lawyer’s own client.</p>
<p>Exceptions:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>The adverse party is not a current client but is instead a former client and the two matters are not “substantially related.” In your example, the lawyer may be able to take the car accident case if the workers’ compensation claim is over and that claim is unrelated to the car accident case.</p></li>
<li><p>Even if both are current clients (or the adverse party is a former client and the matters are substantially related), a lawyer may still be able to take that second accident case if the clients give informed consent. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>There are then exceptions to the exceptions but I cannot get into those and there is also the issue of which state’s rules apply because the states can differ somewhat on the rules applicable to conflicts of interest.</p>