A lawyer can represent multiple clients with potential conflicts when each client gives informed consent.

Conflicts at the table: how informed consent keeps everyone on the same page

Here’s a simple truth: lawyers don’t always work with a single client in a vacuum. Sometimes one case drags in multiple people whose interests could clash. The big question isn’t whether you’ll face conflicts, but how you handle them. The correct, ethical path is crystal clear: a lawyer may represent several clients with potential conflicts if each client gives informed consent. That means the lawyer has to lay out the issues, the possible downside, and the fact that the representation may not be ideal for every client, and then get each client to agree to proceed.

Let me explain what that actually looks like in real life.

What “informed consent” really means

Informed consent isn’t paperwork for the sake of paperwork. It’s a conversation, then a record. Here’s the essence:

• Each client must understand the nature of the conflict. What’s at stake? How could shared representation affect loyalty, confidentiality, or strategy?

• Each client must grasp the implications of continuing to be represented together. Are there limitations on what the lawyer can timely tell the other clients? How will confidential information be protected?

• Each client must voluntarily agree to proceed despite the conflict. No pressure, no steering, just a clear, decision-by-decision choice.

This is grounded in core duties in professional ethics, notably the duty of loyalty and the obligation to keep clients fully aware of any situation that could affect the attorney–client relationship. In practical terms, think of it as a candid briefing: “Here’s what could go sideways, here are your options, and here’s how we’ll handle communications and confidences if you both choose to move forward.”

A quick note on the safeguards

Consent is powerful, but it isn’t a free pass. Lawyers should also:

• Document everything. A written consent memorandum or a detailed engagement letter noting the conflict, the risks, and the agreed approach helps protect everyone. In the world of ethics, good record-keeping is a form of defense against later claims that someone didn’t understand or wasn’t fully informed.

• Define the scope of representation. If the conflict arises in one area and not another, spell out what the lawyer is and isn’t authorized to handle for each client.

• Establish a mechanism to switch gears if things change. If the conflict intensifies or new conflicts appear, there should be a clear path to re-evaluate or withdraw from representation as needed.

Confidentiality and loyalty: where the lines get tested

The concern when multiple clients are involved isn’t just about who hears what. It’s about what information is shared and with whom. Even when everyone seems aligned, a misstep—like discussing a client’s confidential position with the other client—can damage trust and invite serious ethical trouble. That’s why the consent process emphasizes how information is handled and kept separate.

Think about it this way: loyalty isn’t a one-way street. The lawyer owes loyalty to each client, and each client has a right to expect that their confidences will be guarded, even if the lawyer can see a broader pattern that might influence strategy. Informed consent helps ensure that every client understands how their information will be treated and what might or might not be shared with the others.

A practical lens: what not to do

The other options in that multiple-choice scenario illustrate common missteps people worry about when learning about conflicts. Let’s connect the dots so you can spot the traps in real cases:

• Don’t reveal all details to every client just because “the conflict is mutual.” That can breach confidentiality and undermine the incentives for each client to be honest about fears or preferences. The right move is to disclose the nature and implications of the conflict, not broadcast every strategic detail.

• Don’t consult with opposing counsel just to “see what happens.” In ethical terms, you shouldn’t disclose sensitive client information without proper consent. Even if you think it might help, it can create a dangerous precedent and blur the lines between safeguarding confidences and coordinating a strategy.

• Don’t think you can smooth over a conflict with a fee discount. Money talk can be a nuisance, but it doesn’t address the core issues: loyalty, confidentiality, and the need for an informed, voluntary decision by each client.

Real-world flavor: a story you might recognize

Picture a small business owner and a key investor who come to you with a shared legal matter. The business owner wants a path that preserves operational control; the investor has a competing plan that could maximize the investment but might limit the owner’s control. If you handle both matters separately and disclose the potential conflict—what it means for strategic advice, what information stays private, and how communications will be managed—you’ve created a framework for consent that respects each client’s autonomy.

The consent framework isn’t just about being permissive. It’s about being precise. The goal is to help each client decide with confidence whether the joint representation serves their interests, knowing that you’ll protect their confidences and loyalty to them as individuals.

What “proper documentation” looks like in practice

• A clear disclosure of the conflict. Lay out why there’s a risk of conflicting interests, and what kinds of information would be shared or kept separate.

• An explicit statement of consent from each client. The language should make it clear that the client understands the conflict and agrees to proceed.

• A defined scope of representation. This includes which matters you’ll handle for each client and what happens if the conflict becomes material.

• A mechanism to revisit consent. If the relationship changes—perhaps new issues arise or a client’s position shifts—there should be a process to re-evaluate.

You don’t want to be caught in a “gotcha” moment where someone later says they didn’t fully understand. The beauty of written consent is that it creates a shared memory of what was discussed and agreed upon. And yes, it’s a bit of overhead, but in this arena, precision saves you from bigger headaches down the road.

Key takeaways you can carry into real conversations

• Informed consent is the legal and ethical backbone for multi-client representation with potential conflicts.

• It’s about clarity: what the conflict is, what it could mean for each client, and how risks will be managed.

• Documentation isn’t a luxury; it’s the heartbeat of credible representation.

• The consent process protects confidentiality, loyalty, and the client’s self-determination.

• When a conflict clearly cannot be resolved in a way that preserves the client’s interests, withdrawal may be the ethical choice.

A gentle reminder about the bigger picture

Ethics isn’t a dry list of prohibitions. It’s a framework that helps lawyers earn and keep the trust of every person who sits across the table. When a lawyer demonstrates transparency and respects a client’s right to make an informed choice, the professional relationship deepens. And that is the professional goal at the end of the day: to serve clients with integrity, even when the path isn’t perfectly smooth.

Looking ahead: a quick reflection

If a new or evolving conflict bubbles up, what should you do? Return to the basics: disclose, explain, and secure consent from each involved client. If anyone feels uncertain, it’s perfectly reasonable to pause and reassess. The question isn’t whether conflicts exist—it’s how honestly and carefully you navigate them.

Final thoughts: the ethical compass in practice

So, the takeaway is straightforward and practical: a lawyer may represent multiple clients with potential conflicts, provided every client gives informed consent. It’s a principle that anchors trust, protects confidentiality, and empowers clients to decide how they want to proceed. The moment you see a conflict, start with that transparent conversation, document the consent, and keep the lines of communication clear and separate. That approach isn’t just compliant—it’s respectful, humane, and ultimately what good lawyering looks like in real life.