What must be done to comply with conflicts of interest rules in legal representation?

Conflicts of interest: the moment you pause, the moment you protect your client’s trust

Let’s face it: lawyers juggle a lot of demanding duties at once. You’re safeguarding client confidences, zealously advocating, and staying on the right side of a maze of rules. Conflicts of interest—where loyalties could clash—are one of those moments that demand clarity, honesty, and a careful plan. If you’ve ever thought, “What should I do when two clients have opposing interests?” you’re in good company. The guiding principle is simple in words, yet powerful in practice: get informed consent from the affected clients before moving ahead.

Here’s the thing about the rules: they’re not about making representation impossible; they’re about making it fair and transparent. In plain terms, if there’s a potential conflict—say you’ve represented a client who has interests that might later collide with those of a current client—the attorney must spell out the conflict, lay out what it could mean for loyalty and confidentiality, and obtain consent from the clients involved before proceeding. This isn’t a one-and-done box-ticking exercise. It’s a process that protects clients, preserves the integrity of the representation, and helps you avoid later headaches in court or boardrooms.

The core rule you’ll hear about, in discussions of professional responsibility ethics, is straightforward: obtain consent from affected parties after full disclosure of the nature and consequences of the conflict. Consent must be knowing and voluntary. In practice, that means giving the clients enough information to understand what’s happening, the potential risks to their interests, and any alternatives you’ve considered. When consent is given in writing, it’s even clearer proof that everyone understood what they were agreeing to. This is not just a formality; it’s a shield for both the lawyer and the clients.

Let me explain why this matters beyond the letter of the rule. Loyalty is the backbone of effective advocacy. When a lawyer appears for multiple clients whose interests could diverge, there’s a real risk that confidential information might slide into the wrong hands, or that a single representation could be compromised by competing duties. Consent helps ensure that each client knows what they’re giving up (or what they’re not giving up) and can decide if they’re comfortable proceeding. It’s about empowerment—giving clients agency over their own legal journey.

A quick reality check: consent isn’t the same as simply notifying the client about a conflict. Notifying someone that a conflict exists is a good first step, but it doesn’t automatically satisfy the ethical requirement. In many situations, the rule calls for informed, written consent from the affected parties. Why the emphasis on written consent? Because it creates a clear, verifiable record of exactly what was disclosed, what risks were explained, and what the clients agreed to. Verbal assurances are valuable, but memory fades and misunderstandings happen. Writing things down reduces ambiguity and offers protection if circumstances later shift.

Let’s talk about some common scenarios, so you can recognize where consent becomes the key moment. Imagine you’re handling a matter for Client A, and you discover that Client B has an interest that could conflict with Client A’s position. Or you’ve represented someone in a case, and now you’re asked to represent a new client whose claim might be adverse to a former client. In these situations, the ethical move is to pause and assess, then disclose fully and seek consent from all affected clients before continuing. If any client doesn’t consent, you should refrain from representing the new client in that matter or look for a way to screen or limit the representation—keeping confidences and avoiding the appearance of divided loyalty.

What about the idea of “consulting a senior partner”? That can be a sensible step. Getting a second, independent perspective helps you see angles you might miss. Yet consulting someone else in the firm does not replace the obligation to obtain consent from the clients involved. It’s a support tool, not a substitute for the core requirement. Think of it as a safety net: it helps ensure you’re not missing a nuance or overestimating your ability to remain loyal to multiple clients at once.

And the notion of “written disclosure to the government”—where does that fit? In certain contexts, regulatory or statutory duties might require specific disclosures to government bodies, but that’s not the central remedy for conflicts between clients. The main mechanism to address conflicts is consent from the affected clients, ideally in writing, after clear disclosure. There can be separate regulatory obligations in particular situations, but those don’t automatically cure or replace the need for client consent. So, in the everyday practice of ethical lawyering, consent remains the centerpiece.

Let’s break down a practical path you can follow when a potential conflict arises. This is not a rigid recipe, but a dependable framework you can adapt:

• Identify the conflict with precision. What exactly are the interests that could clash? Is there a potential leakage of confidential information? Could loyalty to one client compromise the representation of another?

• Disclose fully. Explain the nature of the conflict, the possible practical effects, and the options you’re considering. Use plain language—avoid legalese that could confuse rather than illuminate.

• Explore alternatives. Could you screen the attorney, divide the engagement, or reassign the matter to someone else who isn’t affected? Sometimes a partial representation is feasible; other times it’s not.

• Seek informed consent in writing. Give the clients enough information to make a voluntary, well-considered decision. A well-drafted written consent form should spell out the conflict, the implications, any limits, and the fact that the clients are agreeing to proceed with the representation despite the conflict.

• Preserve confidentiality and maintain records. Document what you disclosed and what was consented to. Preserve notes or signed forms in your file so you can demonstrate that you complied with the rule if questions arise later.

• Revisit if circumstances change. If later developments heighten the conflict or shift its implications, reassess and, if needed, obtain fresh consent or adjust the representation.

A few common-sense notes to keep you grounded:

• Consent must be informed. That means more than a quick chat. It means you’ve explained the real-world consequences, including how conflicts could affect loyalty, decision-making, and the handling of confidential information.

• Consent must be voluntary. Pressure or coercion will undermine the integrity of the consent you obtain. Nobody should feel forced into an arrangement that could compromise their interests.

• Written consent is strongly preferred. It provides a clear record that is hard to refute and helps avoid later disputes about what was said or understood.

In the real world, conflicts of interest often pop up in ways you wouldn’t expect. A corporate client might face a claim from a subsidiary with competing interests. An attorney who has negotiated settlements for one party might be asked to represent the opposing party in a different matter. A lawyer who has confidential information about a former client may be asked to represent a current client in a substantially related matter. Each of these scenarios requires careful attention to consent. It’s not just about following a rule—it’s about safeguarding trust, protecting clients, and preserving the integrity of the legal process.

If you’re a thinker who likes to map things out, you might sketch a quick decision tree: Is there a potential conflict? If yes, can you represent both parties with informed, written consent? If no, proceed with the representation. If consent cannot be obtained, do not proceed with representation in that matter. Keep the lines of communication open with clients, and always err on the side of transparency.

A few final reflections for the road:

• The consent-first approach isn’t a hurdle to overcoming tough cases; it’s a path to robust, ethical advocacy. When clients know their interests are protected, they’re more likely to trust the process and engage fully.

• This is about professional responsibility, not about winning at all costs. The strength of your argument is bolstered by a framework that respects boundaries and clarifies loyalties.

• If you ever feel unsure, ask questions. Put it in writing. Bring in a senior colleague for a second look. The goal is clear: a straightforward, ethical path that keeps everyone’s interests front and center.

In the end, conflicts of interest aren’t just a compliance checklist. They’re a practical reminder that every legal relationship rests on trust. Consent, given with full disclosure and in writing when possible, is how you honor that trust. It’s how you demonstrate that your primary loyalty is to the client’s best interests, unclouded by competing pressures.

If you’re navigating these gray areas, you’re not alone. The rules exist to guide you through them with clarity and fairness. And remember: the heart of good advocacy isn’t just what you can argue; it’s how honestly you acknowledge the competing loyalties that come with every case. That honesty is what turns a good argument into a lasting professional reputation.