Conflict of interest in a regular

lawyer-client relationship

Problem Areas in Legal Ethics

Arellano University School of Law Arellano Law Foundation
2015-2016

1
 C O I is everyw h ere

Con flic ts of in te rest a re not the exclusive headache of la rg e,

u rban, m u lti-office law firm s. Con flic ts of in terest a rise
w ith in and affect law practices of ever y size, geographical
location and discipline. The num ber of c lien ts, adverse
par tie s, and in te rested non-par tie s w ith w hom atto rneys
becom e invo lved th roughou t the ir ca reers is tru ly staggering
and invariably underestim ated.

2
 Extrem e case o f C o n flict o f In terest

The m ost obviou s con flicts of in te rest a re tho se in w h ich the

lawyer's personal interests clash with those of the client.

3
 R u le o n C o n flictin g In terests

It is generally the ru le based on sound pub lic po licy that

atto rney canno t represent d ive rse in te rest. It is h igh ly
im proper to represen t both sid es of an issue.

4
 C o m p etito r C o n flicts

Cou r ts have found that a com petito r con flic t is p resen t w hen
the law yer attem pts to represent two competitors on a
m ateria l aspect of the ir com petition.

5
 W h o se in terest?

It is, of cou rse, a ho rnbook propo sition that it is the

client, and not the lawyer, that de fin es the c lien t's
in te rests and in stru cts the law yer abou t them .

6
 D eg ree o f in vo lvem en t

The g reate r the in vo lvem en t in the clien t's a ffairs the

g reate r the danger that con fid ences (w here such ex ist) w ill
be revea led.

7

C lo sed fileco n flicts

Invo lve represen ta tion adverse to a fo rm er c lient in the sam e

o r sub stan tia lly re la ted m atte rs.

8
 D o ctrin e o f
im p u ted kn o w led g e

Doctrine of im pu ted knowledge is based on the assum ption that

an a tto rney, who has no tice of m atte r a ffecting his c lien t,
has communicated the same to his principal in th e cou rse of
professiona l dea ling s. The doctrine app lie s regard less of
whether o r no t the law yer actua lly comm un icated to the c lient
what he lea rned in h is professiona l capac ity, the attorney and
his client being one judicial person.

Know ledge of one m em ber of a law firm w ill be im pu ted by

in fe rence to a ll m em bers of that firm ; free flow of
in fo rm ation w ith in the par tnersh ip.

9
 P relim in ary co n flict of in terest ch eck

Whenever a pro spective clien t seek in g lega l assistance

con tacts an atto rney, the a tto rney shou ld po lite ly bu t firm ly
decline to discuss the matter in detail un til a preliminar y
conflict of interest check can be per fo rm ed.
A s the adjective suggests, preliminar y conflict of interest
checks shou ld idea lly be pe r fo rm ed before the prospective
client divulges additional confidential information w h ich
m ay con flic t the a tto rney ou t of current or future
represen ta tions.
Ru le 15.01. - A law yer , in con fe rring w ith a pro spective
c lien t, sha ll asce r ta in as soon as practicable whether the
m atte r w ou ld in vo lve a con flic t w ith ano ther c lien t o r h is
ow n in te rest, and if so, sha ll fo r thw ith in fo rm the
pro spective c lien t.

10
 C A N O N 21 - A law yer sh all p reserve th e co n fid en ce
an d secrets o f h is clien t even after th e atto rn ey-clien t
relatio n is term in ated

Ru le 21.02 - A law yer sha ll no t, to the d isadvantage of h is

c lien t, use information acquired in the course of
employment, no r shall he use the same to his own advantage
o r that of a third person, un less th e c lien t w ith fu ll
know ledge of the c ircum stances consen ts the re to.

Ru le 21.07 - A law yer shall not reveal that he has been

consulted about a par ticular case except to avoid po ssib le
con flic t of in te rest.

11
 General Rule in a law firm

Rule 21. 04 - A lawyer may di scl ose t he affai rs of a cli ent of t he

fir mt o partners or associ ates thereof unless prohibited by the
client.

An information obtained from a client by a member or assistant

of a law firm is i nf or mati on i mpart ed to t he fir m. This is not a
mere fiction or an arbitrary rule; for such member or assistant, as
in our case, not only acts in the name and interest of the firm,
but hi s i nf ormati on, by the nature of his connection with the
firm i s avail abl e t o hi s associ ates or empl oyers. Hilado v.
David, et. Al., G.R. No. L-961, September 21, 1949

12
 C A N O N 15 - A law yer sh all o b serve can d o r, fairn ess
an d lo yalty in all h is d ealin g s an d tran sactio n s w ith
h is clien ts
Ru le 15.01. - A law yer , in con fe rring w ith a pro spective
c lien t, sha ll asce r ta in as soon as practicable whether the
m atte r w ou ld in vo lve a con flic t w ith ano ther c lien t o r h is
ow n in te rest, and if so, sha ll fo r thw ith in fo rm the
pro spective c lien t.
Ru le 15.03. - A law yer sha ll no t represen t con flic ting
in te rests except by written consent of all concerned given
af ter a full disclosure of the facts.
Ru le 15.04. - A law yer m ay, w ith the w ritten consen t of a ll
concerned, act as m ed ia tor , concilia to r o r a rb itrato r in
se ttling d ispu tes.
Ru le 15.05. - A law yer w hen adv is ing h is c lien t, sha ll g ive
a cand id and honest op in ion on the m erits and probab le
resu lts of the c lien t's case, ne ither o versta tin g no r
understa ting the pro spects of the case.
13
 Ru le 15.08. - A law yer w ho is engaged in ano ther p rofession
o r o ccupatio n concu rren tly w ith the practice of law sha ll
m ake c lea r to h is c lien t w hether he is acting as a law yer o r
in ano ther capac ity.

14
 C o n fid en tiality o f in fo rm atio n is n o t
relevan t in C O I
The ru le on con flic t of in te rests covers no t on ly cases in
wh ich con fid en tia l comm un ica tions have been con fid ed bu t
a lso tho se in which no confidence has been bestowed or will
be used. - Atty. Ja landoni v. A tty. V illa rosa , AC 5303 , June 15,
2006

15
 U n q u alified o p p o sin g in terest o f n ew
an d fo rm er clien ts
The ru le proh ib its a law yer from represen ting new c lien ts
whose interests oppose those of a former client in any
m anner, w hether o r no t th ey a re par ties in the same action o r
in to ta lly unrelated cases. - Atty. Ja landon i v. Atty.
V illa rosa , AC 5303 , June 15 , 2006

16
 Another test of the inconsistency of interests is whether the acceptance
of a new relation will prevent an attorney from the full discharge of his
duty of undivided fidelity and loyalty to his client or invite suspicion of
unfaithfulness or double-dealing in the performance thereof, and also
whether he will be called upon in his new relation to use against his
first client any knowledge acquire in the previous employment.

The first part of the rule refers to cases in which the opposing parties
are present clients either in the same action or in a totally unrelated
case; the second part pertains to those in which the adverse party
against whom the attorney appears is his former client in a matter which
is related, directly or indirectly, to the present controversy. - Atty.
Jalandoni v. Atty. Villarosa, AC 5303, June 15, 2006

17
 C o u n sel of co rp o ratio n can n o t rep resen t
m em b ers of b o ard of d irecto rs
A fte r due delib e ra tion on the w isdom of th is doctrine, w e are
su ffic ien tly convin ced that a law yer engaged as counse l fo r
a co rpo ra tio n canno t represen t m em bers of the sam e
co rpo ra tion s board of d irecto rs in a deriva tive su it b rough t
aga in st them . To do so w ou ld be tan tam ount to represen ting
con flic ting in te rests, w h ich is p rohib ited by the Code of
P rofessiona l Responsib ility.(H o rn illa v. A tty. Sa lunat, A .C . N o.
5804 , Ju ly 1, 2003)

18
Degree of adverse interest, intention or motive
are not material
An attorney owes to his client undivided allegiance. After being
retained and receiving the confidences of the client, he cannot,
without the free and intelligent consent of his client, act both for
his client and for one whose interest is adverse to, or conflicting
with that of his client in the same general matter. The
pr ohi bi ti on stands even if t he adverse i nt erest i s ver y sli ght;
neither is it material that the i ntenti on and moti ve of the
attorney may have been honest- Lim J r. v. Atty. Villarosa, A.C. No.
5303, J une 15, 2006

19
 As to who initiate engagement
is immaterial
To negate any culpability, respondent explained that he did not
offer his legal services to accused Avila and I lo but it was the two
accused who sought hi s assi stance in executing their
extraj udicial confessions. Nonetheless, he acceded to their
request to act as counsel after apprising them of their
constitutional rights and after being convinced that the accused
were under no compulsion to give their confession. - Perez v.
Atty. Dela Torre, AC 6160, March 30, 2006

20
R etain ed co u n sel o f eith er p arty can n o t act as
m ed iato r w ith o u t co n sen t
Even responden ts a lleged e ffo r t to se ttle the ex isting
con tro versy am ong the fam ily m em bers was improper because
the written consent of all concerned was still required. A
law yer who acts as such in settling a dispute cannot
represent any of the par ties to it. - L im Jr. v. Atty.
V illa rosa , A .C . N o . 5303, June 15 , 2006

Ru le 15.04. - A law yer m ay, with the written consent of all

concerned, act as m ed ia tor, concilia to r o r a rb itrato r in
se ttling d ispu tes.

21
 N atu re o f th e case is irrelevan t

The c la im of responden t that there is no con flict of in te rests

in th is case, as the civil case handled by the ir law firm
where Gonza les is the com pla inan t and the criminal cases
filed by Gonza les aga in st the Gatcheco spouses are no t
re la ted, has no m erit. The represen tation of opposing c lien ts
in sa id cases, though unre la ted, constitu tes conflic t of
in te rests o r
, a t the ve r y least, invites suspicion of double-
dealing which this Cour t cannot allow. - G onza les v. A tty.
Cabucana , A .C . N o . 6836 , Januar y 23, 2006

22
 D ism issed em p lo yee an d co u n sel o f
reco rd in co m p atib le
In the in stant case , qu ite apar t from the issue of valid ity of the
1990 com p rom ise ag reem en t, th is Cou r t find s fau lt in responden t's
om ission of that basic sense of fid e lity to stee r c lear of
situation s th at pu t h is lo ya lty and devo tion to h is c lien t, the
facu lty m em bers of UST, open to question. Atty. Mario bo th as law yer
and p resid en t of the un ion w as du ty bound to p ro tect and advance
the in te rest of un ion m em bers and the barga in ing un it above h is
ow n. Th is ob lig a tion w as jeopard ized w hen h is personal in te rest as
one of the d ism issed em p loyees of UST com p lica ted the nego tia tion
p rocess and even tua lly resu lted in the lop sided com prom ise ag reem en t
that righ tly o r w rong ly b rough t m oney to h im and the o ther
d ism issed un ion office rs and d irecto rs , seem ing ly o r o ther w ise at
the expense of the facu lty m em bers. - Dr. Gam illa e t. a l. v. A tty.
Mario Jr., A .C . No . 4763 , March 20 , 2003

23
 C lien t of law firm is th e clien t o f every
p artn ers an d asso ciates

Responden t fu r ther a rgued that it w as h is b ro ther w ho

represen ted Gonza les in the c iv il case and no t him , thus,
the re cou ld be no con flict of in te rests. We do no t ag ree. A s
responden t adm itted, it w as the ir la w firm w h ich represen ted
Gonza les in the c iv il case. Such be ing the case, the ru le
aga in st represen ting conflic ting in terests app lies. -
Gonza les v. Atty. Cabucana, A .C . N o . 6836 , Januar y 23 , 2006

24
 V icario u s d isq u alificatio n

Trad itiona lly, if a law yer is ine lig ib le to represen t a

par ticu la r clien t, a ll m em bers of th e law yer's firm a lso a re
in e lig ib le.
The basis fo r v ica riou s d isqua lification is the "presum ption
of shared con fid ences," wh ich seeks to preven t d isc lo su re of
c lien t con fidences, preser ve counsel lo ya lty, and avo id the
appearance of im proprie ty.

25
 P ro fessio n al en g ag em en t starts th e m o m en t
th e law yer listen s to h is p ro sp ective clien t
An atto rney is em ployed that is, he is engaged in h is
professiona l capac ity as a law yer o r counse lo r when he is
listening to his client s preliminar y statement of his
case, o r w hen he is g iv ing advice thereon, just as tru ly as
when he is d raw ing h is clien t s p lead ing s, o r advocating h is
c lien t s p lead ing s, o r advocating h is c lien t s cause in open
cou r t. - A tty. Ca ta lan v. Atty. S ilvosa A .C . N o . 7360 [2012]

26
 G o o d faith is n o t a d efen se

Indeed, the proh ib ition aga in st represen ta tion of con flic tin g
in te rests app lie s a lthough the a tto rneys in ten tion s w ere
honest and he acted in good fa ith. - A tty. Ca ta lan v. A tty.
S ilvosa A .C . N o . 7360 [2012]

27
 Consent ineffective
A lawyer may not properly represent conflicting interests even
though the parties concerned agree to the dual representation
where:
1. the conflict is between the attorney s interest and that of a
client, or
2. between a private client s interests and that of the government
or any of its instrumentalities.
3. between an accused and counsel.
Section 12. (Article III of the Constitution)
(1) Any person under investigation for the commission of an offense shall
have the right to be informed of his right to remain silent and to have
competent and independent counsel preferably of his own choice. I f the
person cannot afford the services of counsel, he must be provided with one.
These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of
counsel.

28
 Th ree tests to d eterm in e co n flictin g
in terests
The first is w hen, on beha lf of one c lien t, it is the
atto rneys du ty to con test fo r that wh ich h is duty to ano ther
c lien t requ ires h im to oppo se o r w hen th is po ssib ility of
such situa tion w ill d evelo p (conflicting duties).

29
 The second test is w hether the acceptance of the new re la tio n
w ill p reven t a law yer from the fu ll d ischarge of h is du ty of
und iv id ed fide lity and loya lty to h is c lien t o r w ill in v ite
su sp ic ion of un fa ith fu ln ess o r doub le-dea ling in the
per fo rm ance the reof (Invitation of suspicion).

30
 The third test is whether a lawyer will be called upon in his new
relation to use against the first client any knowledge acquired in
the previous employment ( use of pri or knowl edge obt ai ned).

Representing conflicting interests would occur only where the

attorney s new engagement would require her to use against a
former client any confidential i nf or mati on gai ned fr om t he
pr evi ous pr ofessi onal relati on.
The prohibition did not cover a situation where the subj ect
matter of the present engagement was totally unrelated to the
previous engagement of the attorney.
- Seares, J r. v. Atty. Gonzales-Alzate, Adm. Case No. 9058
November 14, 2012

31
 Rem em ber : The test to dete rm ine w hether the re is a con flic t
of in te rest in the represen ta tion is PROBABILIT Y, not
cer tainty of conflict .

It is of no m om en t that th e law yer w ou ld no t be ca lled upon to

con tend fo r o ne c lien t that w h ich the law yer has to oppose fo r th e
o ther c lien t, o r tha t the re w ou ld be no o ccasion to use the
con fiden tia l in fo rm ation acqu ired from one to the d isadvan tage of
the o ther as the tw o actio ns a re w ho lly un re la ted . It is enough
th at the oppos ing par ties in one case , one of w hom wou ld lo se the
su it, a re p resen t c lien ts and the natu re o r cond itio ns of the
law yer s respective re ta iners w ith each of them wou ld a ffect the
per fo rm ance of the du ty of und iv id ed fide lity to bo th c lien ts . -
Qu iambao v. A tty. Bamba , A dm . C ase No . 6708 August 25 , 2005

32
 Effects of Representing Adverse Interests

1. Disqualification as counsel of new client on petition of

former client.
2. Wh ere such is unknown to, becomes prej udicial interests of
the new client, a j udgment against such may, on that ground be set
aside.
3. A lawyer can be held administratively liable through
disciplinary action and may be held criminally liable for betrayal of
trust.
4. The attorney s right to fees may be defeated if found to be
related to such conflict and such was obj ected to by the former
client, or if there was a concealment and prej udice by reason of the
attorney s previous professional relationship with the opposite party.

33
What are the types of conflict of interest?

1. Concurrent or mul ti pl e or si mul taneous repr esent ati on:

A lawyer represents clients whose obj ectives are
adverse to each other, no matt er how sli ght or
re mot e t hese are
Take note of this minimal degree
Ex. A CPA-lawyer being part of a firm that
represents the estate and being part of the
accountancy firm that represents the creditors. The
confli ct need not ari se fr om t wo l egal
rel ati onshi ps.
2. Sequenti al or successi ve repr esent ati on:
Representation of present client who may have an
interest adverse to prior client.

34
 Successive representation - when a lawyer or law firm seeks to
represent a client whose int er ests are adverse t o a f or mer cli ent
without the former client' s consent. The rule against simultaneous
representation is based principally on the dut y of undi vi ded
l oyal ty.

Unlike simultaneous representation, successi ve represent ati on is

not prima facie improper. The dut y t o pr eser ve cli ent
confi dences is the primary ethical consideration implicated by
successive representation.
Successive representation i mpli cat es bot h t he dut y of l oyal ty
and t he pr eser vati on of the att or ney-cli ent rel ati ons hi p.

35
Su sp icio n o f D o u b le-d ealin g even if th e case is
u n related

We do no t susta in responden ts theor y that sin ce the

ejectm en t case and the rep lev in case a re un re la ted cases
fraugh t w ith d iffe ren t issues, par ties, and subject m atte rs,
the prohibition is inapplicable. His representation of
opposing clients in both cases, though unrelated, obviously
constitutes conflict of interest or, at the least, invites
suspicion of double-dealing . - Qu iam bao v. A tty. Bam ba , Adm .
Case N o . 6708 A ugust 25 , 2005

36
 D o es th e law yer h ave to b e th e co u n sel-o f-
reco rd fo r th e o th er p arty to vio late th is
p ro visio n ?
T be guilty of representing conflicting interests, a counsel-of-
o
record of one par ty need not also be counsel-of-record of the
adverse par ty. He does not have to publicly hold himself as the
counsel of the adverse par ty, nor make his effor ts to advance the
adverse par tys conflicting interests of record--- although
these circumstances are the most obvious and satisfactor y proof
of the charge. It is enough that the counsel of one par ty had a
hand in the preparation of the pleading of the other par ty,
claiming adverse and conflicting interests with that of his
original client. To require that he also be counsel-of-record of
the adverse par ty would punish only the most obvious form of
deceit and reward, with impunity, the highest form of disloyalty.
Ar tezuela v. Atty
. Maderazo, A.C. No. 4354. April 22, 2002

37
 O n ly in stan ce w h en a law yer can
rep resen t co n flictin g in terest
A law yer canno t represent con flic tin g in te rests except by
written consent of all concerned g iven a fte r a fu ll
d isc lo su re of the facts. Santos Ve ntu ra H oco rm a Foundatio n ,
Inc . v. A tty. Funk , A .C . No . 9094 A ugust 15 , 2012

38
 Lim it o f fu ll d isclo su re

A law yer is fo rb idden from rep resen ting a sub sequen t c lien t aga inst
a fo rm er c lie n t w hen the subject m atte r of the p resent con tro ve rsy
is re la ted , d irectly o r in d irectly , to the subject m atte r of the
p rev ious litigation in w h ich he appeared fo r the fo rm er c lien t.
Converse ly, he m ay p roperly act as counse l fo r a new c lien t, w ith
fu ll d isc lo sure to the la tter, aga in st a fo rm er c lien t in a m atte r
who lly un re lated to that of th e p rev ious em p loym en t, the re be ing in
tha t in stance no con flic t of in te rests .
Where , how ever, the subject m atte r of the p resen t su it betw een the
law yer s new c lien t and his fo rm er c lien t is in som e w ay connected
w ith that of th e fo rm er c lien t s action, the law yer m ay have to
con tend fo r h is new c lien t tha t w h ich he p rev iously opposed as
counse l fo r the fo rm er c lien t o r to u se aga in st the la tte r
in fo rm ation con fid ed to h im as h is counse l. - Po rmento , Sr. v. A tty.
Ponteved ra , A .C . No . 5128 . Ma rch 31 , 2005

39
 P u rp o se an d in ten tio n is im m aterial

Responden t con tends that he hand led the de fense of the

accused in the subject crim ina l case fo r hum an itarian
reasons and w ith the honest be lie f that the re exists no
con flic t of in te rests. How ever, the ru le is se ttled that the
proh ib ition aga in st represen ta tion of con flic tin g in te rests
app lie s a lth ough the a tto rneys intentions and motives were
honest and he acted in good faith . Mo reover, the fact that
the con flic t of in te rests is rem o te o r m ere ly probab le does
no t m ake the p roh ib ition inopera tive. - Po rm ento , Sr. v. A tty.
Ponteved ra , A .C . N o . 5128. M arch 31 , 2005

40
 Term in atio n o f A -C relatio n s is n o t a
ju stificatio n
Responden t also asse r ts that w hen he accepted em ploym en t in
Crim ina l Case N o. 3159, the a tto rney-c lien t re lations betw een
h im and com pla inan t in Civ il Case N o. 1648 had already been
te rm inated. Th is de fense does no t ho ld w ate r because the
termination of the relation of attorney and client provides
no justification for a lawyer to represent an interest
adverse to or in conflict w ith that of the fo rm er c lien t.
Po rm ento , Sr. v. A tty. Ponteved ra , A .C . N o . 5128 . M arch 31 , 2005

41
 A cq u ired kn o w led g e o f fo rm er clien t
s
d o in g s is in d elib le
The reason fo r th is is that a law yer acqu ires know ledge of
h is fo rm er clien t's do ings, whether documented or not, that
he w ou ld o rdin a rily no t have acqu ired were it not for the
trust and confidence that h is c lien t p laced on him in the
lig h t of their re la tion sh ip. It w ou ld sim ply be im possib le
fo r the law yer to id en tify and e rase such en tru sted
know ledge w ith fau ltle ss p rec is ion or lo ck the sam e in to an
iron box w hen su ing the fo rm er c lient on beha lf of a new one.
- Santos Ve ntura H oco rm a Foundatio n , Inc . v. A tty. Funk , A .C .
No . 9094 A ugust 15 , 2012

42
 G o o d faith an d h o n est in ten tio n is n o t a
d efen se
That the represen ta tion of con flic ting in te rest is in good
fa ith and w ith honest in ten tion on the par t of the law yer
does not make the prohibition inoperative. - Qu iam bao v. A tty.
Bam ba , Adm . Case N o . 6708 A ugust 25 , 2005

A lthough there a re in stances w here law yers cannot dec line

represen ta tion, they canno t be m ade to labo r under con flic t
of in te rest betw een a presen t c lien t and a pro spective one.
Qu iam bao v. Atty. Bam ba , A dm . Case N o . 6708 A ugust 25 , 2005

43
 Th e p ro h ib itio n ag ain st co n flict o f in terest rests o n
five ratio n ales, ren d ered as fo llo w s:

x x x. F irst, the law seeks to assu re c lien ts th at the ir

law yers w ill represen t them w ith undiv id ed lo ya lty. A c lien t
is en titled to be represen ted by a law yer w hom the c lien t can
tru st. In stilling such con fidence is an objective im po r tan t
in itse lf. x x x.
Second, the proh ib ition aga in st con flic ts of in terest seeks
to enhance the e ffectiveness of legal represen tation. T o the
exten t that a con flic t of in te rest u nderm ines the
independence of the law yer s professiona l judgm en t o r
inh ib its a law yer from wo rk ing w ith appropria te v igo r in the
c lien ts beha lf
, the c lie n ts expectation of e ffective
represen ta tion x x x could be com prom ised. - Sam son v . Atty.
Era, A .C. N o. 6664 Ju ly 16, 2013

44
C o n t

Th ird , a c lie n t has a legal righ t to have the law yer sa feguard the
c lien ts con fid en tia l in fo rm ation xxx .1w ph i1 Preventing u se of
con fid en tia l c lien t in fo rm ation aga in st the in te rests of the c lient,
e ither to bene fit the law yer s personal in te rest, in a id of som e
o ther c lien t, o r to fo ste r an assum ed pub lic pu rpose is fac ilita ted
th rough con flic ts ru les th at reduce the oppo r tun ity fo r such abuse .
Fou r th , con flic ts ru les help en su re that law yers w ill no t exp lo it
c lien ts , su ch as b y inducing a c lien t to m ake a g if t to the law yer
xxx .
F ina lly, som e con flic -tof
- in terest ru les p ro tect in te rests of the legal
system in ob ta in ing adequate p resen ta tio ns to tribunals . In the
absence of such ru les , fo r exam p le , a law yer m igh t appear on bo th
sides of the litig a tion , com p lica ting the p ro cess of tak ing p roof
and com p rom ise adversa r y argum entation x x x . - Samson v. A tty. E ra ,
A .C . No . 6664 Ju ly 16 , 2013

45
 Informed consent must be written

A client' s i mpli ed consent i s i nsuffi ci ent to waive a potential

conflict of interest.
Rule 15. 03. - A lawyer shall not represent conflicting interests
except by wr itten consent of all concerned given after a full
disclosure of the facts.
Wh ile the respondent may assert that the complainant expressly
consented to his continued representation in the ej ectment case,
the respondent failed to show that he fully disclosed the facts to
both his clients and he fail ed t o pr esent any wri tten consent of
t he co mpl ai nant and AI B as required under Rule 15. 03, Canon 15
of the Code of Professional Responsibility. - Quiambao v. Atty.
Bamba, Adm. Case No. 6708 August 25, 2005

46
 C O I rem ain s after term in atio n o f
atto rn ey-clien t relatio n sh ip

The te rm ination of the atto rney-c lie n t re la tion sh ip does no t

justify a law yer to represen t an in terest adverse to o r in
con flic t w ith that of th e fo rm er c lien t. The sp irit beh ind
th is ru le is that the c lien ts con fidence once given shou ld
no t be stripped by the m ere exp ira tion of the profe ssiona l
em ploym en t. Even a fte r the severance of the re lation, a
law yer shou ld no t do anyth ing that w ill in ju riously a ffect
h is fo rm er clien t in any m atte r in w h ich the law yer
prev iously represen ted the c lien t. Sam son v. A tty. E ra , A .C .
No . 6664 July 16 , 2013

47
 C u rren t o b servatio n s h u sb an d an d w ife
law yers in leg al p ractice

Where bo th husband and w ife a re law yers bu t they a re no t

practic ing in associa tio n w ith one ano ther, m ay they o r the ir
firm s represen t d iffe rin g in te rests?
Som e firm s apparen tly have been re lu ctan t to em plo y one
spouse-law yer w here that pe rson's husband o r w ife is, o r m ay
soon be, practic ing w ith ano ther firm in the sam e c ity o r
area.
Som e law firm s are concerned w hether a law firm is
d isqua lified, by reason of its em ploym en t of one spouse, to
represen t a c lien t oppo sing an in te rest represented by ano ther
law firm that em ploys th e husband o r w ife of the inqu iring
firm 's associa te.

48
Con t

It is no t necessarily im proper fo r husband-and -w ife law yers

who are practic ing in d iffe ren t offices o r firm s to represent
d iffe ring in te rests. N o d isc ip lina r y ru le expressly requ ires
a law yer to decline em ploym en t if a husband, w ife, son,
daugh ter, b rother, fa ther, o r o ther c lo se re la tive represen ts
the oppo sing pa r ty in nego tia tion o r litig a tion.
L ikew ise, it is no t necessa rily im proper fo r a law firm
having a m arried par tner o r associa te to represen t c lien ts
whose in te rests a re opposed to tho se of o ther c lien ts
represen ted by ano ther law firm w ith w h ich the m arried
law yer's spouse is associa ted as a law yer.

49
Con t

Married par tners w ho are law yers m ust guard carefully at all
tim es aga in st inadver tent v io la tion s of the ir p rofe ssiona l
responsib ilitie s a ris ing b y reason of the m arital
re la tion sh ip.
The d isqua lifica tion of m arried o r re la ted law yers w ho oppo se
one ano ther professiona lly is no t genera lly im puted to o ther
law yers in the re la ted law yer's law offices.

Such personal d isqua lification is not im pu ted to the

spouses' firm s un less th e law yers have a pe rsonal in te rest
in the ou tcom e of the case.

50
 Special circumstances that
highlight the concern
1. whether the fee of either firm is contingent,
2. whether the disputed matter is one of negotiation or litigation,
and whether the married lawyer in question will or will not
actually be working on the particular matter.
3. Another variation of the problem is the situation in which a
gover n ment al agency, such as a district attorney or an attorney
general, is the e mpl oyer of ei t her t he hus band or t he wi f e, and
the spouse is associ ated wi t h a l aw fir min the same
community.

51
C o n cern s ab o u t h u sb an d & w ife law yers

eY t it a lso m ust be recogn ized that the relationship of

husband and wife is so close that th e po ssib ility of an
in adver ten t b reach of a con fid ence or the unavo idab le rece ipt
of in fo rm ation concern ing the c lien t b y the spouse o ther than
the one w ho represen ts the c lien t ( fo r exam ple, in fo rm ation
con ta ined in a te lephoned m essage lef t fo r the law yer a t
hom e) is substan tia l. Because of the closeness of the
husband-and-wife relationship, a law yer w ho is m arried to a
law yer m ust be par ticu larly ca re fu l.

52
 R eco m m en d atio n s

Married par tners w ho are law yers m ust guard carefu lly a t a ll
tim es aga in st inadver tent v io la tion s of the ir p rofe ssiona l
responsib ilitie s a ris ing b y reason of the m arital
re la tion sh ip.

53
 Law yer R elatives

Eth ica l p recepts adm on ish law yers rela ted by b lo od o r

m arriage to avo id adversaria l represen ta tions w ithou t the
in fo rm ed consen t of the par tie s.
Law yers re lated by b lood o r m arriage have long been pe rm itted
to represen t adversa ria l in te rests pro v ided that a reasonab le
e ffo r t is m ade to an ticipa te and expo se po ten tia l con flic ts
to c lien ts b e fo re ob ta in ing the ir consen t to represen ta tion.
Faced w ith clien t consent, cou r ts have consisten tly requ ired
an actua l con flic t of in te rest ra ther than sim ply the fact of
adversa ria l law yer re la tives be fo re o rdering
d isqua lification.

54
 Perso n al R elatio n sh ip s

A law yer is rom an tica lly in vo lved w ith the oppo sing par tys
atto rney, o r sexua lly in vo lved w ith a c lien t, the law yer s
lo ya lty o r judgm ent can be im pa ired.
Law yers w ho are dating and a lso represen ting adversa ries in
litig a tion shou ld d isc lo se the ir re lationsh ip if it is
su ffic ien tly c lo se that the ir c lien ts m igh t have questions
abou t the law yers' ab ility to represen t them zealou sly.
Law yers w ho are o ther w ise pe rsona lly c lo se should do
likew ise.
The law yer had enjoyed an " in tim ate physica l re lationsh ip"
w ith the secre ta r y and ta lked w ith her "abou t sig n ifican t
aspects of the case," fo r w h ich he w as d isqua lified .
A law yer is proh ib ited from hav ing sex w ith a c lien t un less a
consensua l sexua l re la tionsh ip ex isted prio r to the sta r t of
professiona l represen ta tion.
55
 D u ty to p ro tect o n ly m atters acq u ired
d u rin g th e law yer-clien t relatio n sh ip

The in ten t of the law is to im pose upon the law yer the du ty
to pro tect the c lien ts in te rests only on matters that he
previously handled for the former client and no t fo r m atte rs
that a ro se af te r the law yer -c lien t rela tion sh ip has
te rm inated. Pa lm v. A tty. I ledan , Jr. A .C . N o . 8242 [2009]

56
C an a law yer en g ag ed b y a co rp o ratio n d efen d
m em b ers of th e b o ard of th e sam e
co rp o ratio n in a d erivative su it?
We a re su ffic ien tly convin ced that a law yer engaged as
counse l fo r a co rpo ra tio n canno t represen t m em bers of the
sam e co rpo rations board of d irecto rs in a derivative su it
b rough t aga inst them . To do so w ou ld be tan tam oun t to
represen ting con flic ting in te rests, wh ich is p ro h ib ited by
the Code of P rofessiona l Responsib ility.
Fu r therm o re, th is restriction on dual represen tation shou ld
no t be w a ivab le by consen t in the u sua l w ay; the corporation
should be presumptively incapable of giving valid consent.
Horn illa v. Atty. Sa lunat, A .C . N o . 5804 . Ju ly 1 , 2003

57
Thank you for your
attention!!

58