LEO #1630 ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP; CONFLICTS; ATTORNEY
          HANDLING COLLECTIONS FOR DOCTOR WHO PROVIDED SERVICES TO
          CHILD OF PARENT FOR WHOM ATTORNEY PROVIDED DOMESTIC
          RELATIONS REPRESENTATION

You have presented a hypothetical situation in which a law firm
does collection work for doctors and also does domestic relations
work.  The firm is sometimes asked to collect an account for
medical services rendered to a child while or after the firm
represented one of the parents in a domestic action which may or
may not have involved child custody.  You indicate that the firm
realizes that they could not represent the doctor against the
client, but the doctor wants the firm to collect against the
client's opposing party, if possible.

You have asked the committee to opine whether, under the facts of
the inquiry, it is proper for [a lawyer in] the firm to proceed
against the parent they did not or are not representing and who is
or was the adverse party in the domestic action.  Additionally, you
have asked if the committee's response would be different if the
doctor's bill were for medical services rendered to the adverse
party in the domestic action rather than for services rendered to
the child.

The appropriate and controlling disciplinary rules relative to your
inquiry are DR 5-l05(A) and (B) which provide respectively that a
lawyer shall not accept or continue employment if the exercise of
his independent professional judgment in behalf of a client will be
or is likely to be adversely affected by his representation of
another client; DR 5-l05(C) which establishes the procedure for
curing the conflicts encountered under DR 5-l05(A) and (B), i.e.,
it must be obvious that the lawyer can adequately represent the
interest of each and each must consent to the representation after
full disclosure; DR 5-l05(D) which precludes a lawyer from
representing a new client against a former client, in the same or
a substantially related matter, absent the former client's consent;
and DR 4-l0l which mandates the preservation of a client's
confidences and secrets.

The committee has previously opined that where an attorney had
performed certain tasks for customers of an adverse party, no
attorney-client relationship existed between the attorney and the
adverse party; therefore, there would be no impropriety if the
attorney represented a client against the adverse party.  See LEO
#l384.

In the facts you present, the committee believes that since no
attorney-client relationship arose between the lawyer and his
[previous or current] client's adverse party, i.e., the
spouse/other parent, it would not be improper for the lawyer in the
firm to proceed against the parent they did not or are not
representing and who is or was the adverse party in the domestic
action.  Furthermore, the committee is of the opinion that it would
be irrelevant to the conclusion as to whether the doctor's bill was
for medical services rendered to the adverse party in the domestic
action or to the child.

[DRs 4-101, 5-105(A), (B), (C), (D); LEO 1384]

Committee Opinion
February 7, 1995