Ethics Hotline & Opinions

Ethics Docket No. 1990-14

MARYLAND STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, INC.

COMMITTEE ON ETHICS

ETHICS DOCKET NO. 1990-14

Conflict of Interest: Firm Representing Both Sides in Confessed Judgment Case

 

You represent the creditor who holds a Confessed Judgment Promissory Note in the amount of $5,000.00. As is typical of confessed judgment promissory notes, it provides that the debtor irrevocably authorizes any attorney of a court of record to appear in court on his behalf after the obligation becomes due. The obligation under the note is now in default and you have filed suit on behalf of the creditor against the debtor under the terms of the promissory note. You did not have an attorney make appearance and sign on behalf of the defendant debtor, thus the District Court returned your filings for completion. Your matter of inquiry is whether or not another attorney in your office may enter his or her appearance on behalf of the debtor, as authorized by the terms of the note. For purposes of this discussion, we assume that other counsel in your office would not anticipate continuing representation beyond entering an initial appearance. In other words, if the matter becomes contested, your office would not be representing the interest of the defendant.

This very subject matter was considered by our Committee in 1984 and in that connection, we enclose a copy of Docket 84-62. The reasoning and holding of that opinion would apply to the present Rules of Professional Conduct. We also reference the recent decision of Atlantic Leasing and Financial, Inc. v. I.P.M. Technology, Inc. U.S. Court of Appeals (4th Cir.) Number 88-1793, which confirms the Committee's view that entering an appearance on behalf of the debtor is a "ministerial chorehi. Accordingly, the Committee does not find an ethical violation, assuming that the representation of the defendant is limited as above described.

This opinion, 90-14 makes references to opinion 84-62.
Other References: Atlantic Leasing and Financial, Inc. v. 1PM Technology, Inc. U.S. Court of Appeals (4th Cir.) Number 88-1793

 

DISCLAIMER: Opinions of the Maryland State Bar Association (MSBA) Ethics Committee are an uncompensated service of the MSBA. This Committee’s opinions are not binding on the Maryland Court of Appeals, Maryland Attorney Grievance Commission, MSBA or this Committee. The reader is advised that subsequent judicial opinions, revisions to the rules of professional conduct, and future opinions of this Committee may render the Opinions stated herein outdated. As such, the Committee’s opinions are advisory only and neither the Committee nor the MSBA assumes any liability whatsoever with respect thereto. Accordingly, reliance upon the opinions of this Committee is solely at the risk of the user.