Ethics Hotline & Opinions

ETHICS DOCKET NO. 2015-01

MARYLAND STATE BAR ASSOCIATION, INC.

COMMITTEE ON ETHICS

ETHICS DOCKET NO. 2015-01

Duties to Former Clients

The Committee on Ethics considered your inquiry and I have been assigned to respond on its behalf.  An opinion was requested to determine if you could represent a potential client that a former client had sued in a substantially related manner in the following situation.

You represent a financial services company that obtained a judgment in the amount of $70,000 against Party A, which was duly recorded, and became a lien on Party A's property which was later sold to Party B.  A title company prepared all of the documents and Party A was given the entire purchase price, but the title company failed to note the $70,000 judgment in favor of the financial services company.  On behalf of the financial services company, you filed suit against Party A, Party B and the title company. At a hearing, the Court ruled that the financial services company had no privity with Party B and that the financial services company was not a third party beneficiary.  After the Court's ruling, Party B has contacted you and wants you to represent him against the title company.  You have  contacted the financial services company, who is still a client in other matters, and they have no objection to you representing Party B.

Rule 1.9 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct would apply to the facts presented and states in part:

(a) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.

After reviewing the inquiry and Rule 1.9 of the Maryland Rules of Professional Responsibility, the Committee believes that there is no conflict at this time because Party B's interests are not materially adverse to the interests of the financial services company.  The financial services company is no longer a party in interest and any Complaint filed on behalf of Party B would be against the title company.  The Committee believes your client's "informed consent" should be in writing and explain any possible conflicts such as any future collection proceedings on the judgment to be in compliance with Rule 1.9.

Thank you for consulting the Committee on Ethics.

REFERENCES:

MRPC Rule 1.9

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.