Legal Ethics Opinion No. 1460

Conflict of Interest--Multiple Representation--Pro Bono Services
to Legal Aid Clients 

You have indicated that an attorney participates in a pro bono
program with a legal services agency which provides the attorney
with professional liability insurance and attorney and support
staff assistance in the preparation and litigation of cases
undertaken.   The legal services agency maintains several branch
offices in the general locality in which it operates.  In
addition, you also advise that the pro bono attorney is entitled
to a tax credit for any work performed in the program.  The facts
you provide indicate that, through the program described, the
attorney has agreed to represent a homeless client (A) in a
domestic relations case against B. 

Furthermore, you indicate that, while the attorney is actively
representing A, the attorney is approached by C who wishes to
retain the attorney in C's divorce action against Mrs. C.  In
interviewing C, the attorney discovers that Mrs. C. is
represented in the divorce action by the same legal services
agency under whose pro bono program attorney is providing
representation to A.

You have asked the committee to opine whether, under the facts of
the inquiry, it is proper for attorney to accept representation
of C and, if so, what disclosure, if any, must be made. 
Additionally, you ask whether the propriety would be impacted if
Mrs. C. is represented by an attorney in one branch office of the
legal services agency in question while a different branch office
provides support and assistance to attorney in his representation
of A.  Finally, you ask whether the impropriety would be impacted
if the attorney were receiving no assistance from the legal
services agency but was still covered by their malpractice
insurance and continued to receive the tax credit.

The appropriate and controlling disciplinary rules relative to
your inquiry are DR 5-l05(A) which mandates that a lawyer shall
decline proffered employment if the exercise of his independent
professional judgment in behalf of a client will be or is likely
to be adversely affected by the acceptance of the proffered
employment unless it is obvious that he can adequately represent
the interest of each and if each consents to the representation
after full disclosure; and DR 4-l0l(B) which dictates that a
lawyer shall not knowingly reveal a confidence or secret of his
client or use that information to either the disadvantage of the
client or to the advantage of himself or a third person. 
(emphasis added) 

The committee has previously opined that it was ethically
permissible for an attorney to continue to represent a client
whose opposing party's counsel was an attorney with whom the
first attorney was simultaneously associated on another unrelated
case.  See LEO #l286.

In the facts you present, the committee believes that there is no
impropriety in attorney representing both A and C simultaneously
since the matters involving the two clients are separate and
totally unrelated, and since there is no likelihood that A and C
will become adverse to each other. The committee is of the
opinion that the mere fact that C's opponent (Mrs. C.) in an
unrelated matter is represented by an attorney in the same legal
services agency which provides assistance to attorney in his
representation of A does not demonstrate that the attorney's
independent professional judgment on behalf of A will be or is
likely to be adversely affected by his acceptance of
representation of C.  

The committee cautions, however, that, in the utilization of
support services provided by the legal services agency in his
representation of A, attorney must carefully guard against any
disclosure, inadvertent or otherwise, of C's secrets or
confidences. 

The committee is of the view that both variations on your
inquiry, i.e. (l) A and Mrs. C. being serviced by two branch
offices of the same legal services agency and (2) the attorney
not receiving any assistance from the legal services agency but
still being covered by their malpractice insurance and still
receiving the tax credit, are immaterial to the conclusions
reached.

Committee Opinion
April 13, 1992