Joint representation with divergent interests requires written informed consent to proceed.

Outline (skeleton)

• Opening hook: joint representation can save time and money, but it’s a tightrope when interests diverge.

• What joint representation means and why it happens in practice.

• The core ethical hurdle: conflicts of interest and why they matter.

• The heart of the rule: joint representation can proceed only with written informed consent.

• What “written informed consent” covers in real life: disclosure, risks, alternatives, and revocation.

• Practical implications for lawyers and clients: when to push for separate counsel, and when joint representation might be acceptable.

• Quick takeaways and a hopeful closing note about ethical, solid advocacy.

Article: When clients’ goals clash, how does a lawyer stay on the right side of the line?

Let me explain something tricky but essential: two clients with opposing aims can share one lawyer, but only if everyone truly understands the cost of that choice. In the real world, joint representation pops up in business disputes, family matters, transactional deals with competing interests, and even some criminal cases where multiple defendants end up in the same room. It can be efficient—one lawyer, one set of fees, one streamlined conversation. Yet it’s a setup that can tilt a lawyer’s loyalties, especially when interests diverge. That tension is not just philosophical. It’s the kind of tension that ethics rules are built to manage.

Why does joint representation even exist?

Sometimes, it’s the most practical option. If two clients share a single, overlapping legal issue, bringing in two separate lawyers might create needless delays and cost. In other cases, relationships have gone sour to the point where everyone agrees they’d prefer to keep things simple. The key is recognizing that simplicity comes with a catch: the potential for conflicts of interest. The law treats conflicts seriously because a lawyer’s duty is to each client, not to a group consensus or a single outcome. When conflicts arise, the lawyer may not be able to represent each client with the loyalty, candor, and independent judgment they deserve.

What’s the big ethical hurdle here?

Conflicts of interest are the center of gravity. If a plaintiff prefers one strategy and a defendant favors another, a single attorney might struggle to advocate equally well for both. And the more the cases diverge, the harder it is to give each client the robust, independent advice they deserve. The ethical rules don’t bar joint representation out of hand, but they demand a careful, transparent approach. That approach is what keeps the attorney’s integrity intact and protects each client’s rights.

The core rule in plain language

Here’s the thing: joint representation can proceed only with written informed consent. That sentence sounds simple, but its impact is meaningful. The lawyer must disclose the nature of the conflicts, explain how those conflicts could affect advice and advocacy, and lay out the potential disadvantages of sharing one attorney. Then, and only then, can the representation continue—provided all clients agree in writing.

Think of written informed consent as both a safety net and a decision-aid. It’s a document, yes, but it’s also a clear, unambiguous conversation captured in words: who the lawyer is, what the lawyer will do, what the risks are, and the fact that each client retains the right to seek separate counsel if they wish. The goal isn’t to pressure anyone into staying in the same fight with the same lawyer; it’s to ensure everyone understands the trade-offs and makes a choice with their eyes open.

What should “informed consent” actually look like in practice?

A solid written consent process covers several essential elements:

• Disclosure of conflicts: honest, straightforward explanations of where interests diverge and how that might influence strategy or advice.

• Risks and disadvantages: specific scenarios where one client’s position could benefit at the other’s expense, and how the lawyer will handle such situations.

• Alternatives: the option to hire separate counsel or to withdraw from joint representation if conflicts become unmanageable.

• Scope and duration: what the lawyer will and won’t do, and for how long the joint representation is intended.

• Client acknowledgments: confirmation that each client understands the information, asks questions, and is agreeing without coercion.

• Right to independent counsel: a clear reminder that clients can consult their own attorney if they want a second opinion.

A well-crafted consent form isn’t a sterile boilerplate; it’s a conversation that records real understanding. And yes, parties should sign and date it. It may feel formal, but that formality serves a practical purpose: it protects the clients and helps the lawyer stay on track.

What about the alternatives and the other answer choices?

You may have seen options like “separate legal counsel for each client,” “court approval,” or “it’s automatically unethical.” Here’s how those fit (or don’t fit) the real rules:

• Separate counsel for each client: that’s often the simplest path to avoiding conflicts. It can be recommended when interests diverge significantly or when one client perceives a risk to their own rights. But having two lawyers isn’t a prerequisite for joint representation, nor does it automatically solve every problem. The key is whether conflicts are present and whether consent is truly informed.

• Court approval: in most civil matters, routine joint representation doesn’t require court approval. Courts may step in if a party objects to the arrangement, but the default posture is governed by the lawyers’ ethical duties and the clients’ consent. There can be rare procedural contexts where court oversight is appropriate, but it isn’t the general rule for every joint representation scenario.

• Automatically unethical: that’s almost never the case. Joint representation isn’t banned; it’s regulated. The ethical trap is moving ahead without a clear, informed, written consent. If the clients understand the risks and still choose to proceed, the arrangement can be proper.

Practical considerations for lawyers and clients alike

• Ask early, ask clearly: if you’re the lawyer, start the conversation up front. If you’re a client, ask questions about how conflicts could influence advice, who else might be consulted, and what happens if a conflict becomes unmanageable.

• Document thoroughly: it’s not enough to have a casual agreement spoken in a conference room. Put the understanding in writing, attach a clear summary of the potential conflicts, and keep copies for all parties.

• Build in safeguards: consider procedures for raising concerns, how you’ll handle potential adverse effects on the other client, and when you’d switch to separate counsel.

• Know your rights: a client should feel free to seek independent representation at any time, especially if new conflicts emerge or if the clients’ interests diverge further.

• Reflect on the scenario’s reality: joint representation can be efficient in some contexts, but if you find yourself constantly recalibrating your strategy to satisfy two masters, it may be a signal to rethink the setup.

A few real-world reflections to keep you grounded

Think of a joint representation like sharing a car with a friend on a long road trip. It can be convenient: one car, one plan, one cost. But what if you suddenly want to take a detour that your friend doesn’t agree with? What if you discover a hidden fuel leak or a risky stretch of road that affects both of you differently? In those moments, having separate drivers or a plan to switch cars can save both of you from a crash. Written informed consent is the road map that helps you decide in advance whether you’ll stay in the same vehicle, switch drivers, or pull over to call a tow.

A quick takeaway you can carry forward

• Joint representation is allowed, but only if everyone involved signs off in writing after a clear, honest disclosure of conflicts and risks.

• The consent document isn’t a formality; it’s a meaningful record of an informed decision.

• If conflicts loom large, or if one client wants more assurances, separate counsel is a sensible and practical path.

• Courts aren’t the default gatekeeper here; they generally aren’t required simply to approve a joint representation.

Closing thought

Ethics in law isn’t a dry checklist—it’s about protecting real people, with real interests, in real-life disputes. Written informed consent in joint representation isn’t a flourish; it’s a safeguard. It helps ensure that every client knows what they’re getting into, and that the attorney can advocate with clarity, honesty, and independence where it matters most. If a case ever feels more about convenience than protection, that’s the moment to pause, re-evaluate, and consider alternative arrangements. After all, strong advocacy rests on trust—trust built, not assumed, through careful, transparent conversations and a well-documented agreement.