While Colorado`s former Rule 1.7(a) appeared to allow a lawyer to represent clients who were directly facing each other if the criteria of Rule 1.7(a) (1) and (2) were met, it would be extremely rare, in practice, for a lawyer ever to meet such requirements. Indeed, it would be almost impossible to adequately represent directly harmful clients in a commercial transaction or in a dispute. See z.B. People v. Chew, 830 p.2d 488 (Col. 1992); Persons v. Koeberle, 810 p.2d 1072 (Kolo. 1991). And by incorporating the old Rule 1.7(c) into the Colorado Rule, the Colorado Supreme Court Rules Committee pointed out that representation with direct adversity is almost never allowed. Rule 1.7(b) makes clear what has been virtually the rule in Colorado for a long time: that an attorney can never obtain effective consent from a client to a conflict of interest in the event of direct adversity, at least in litigation. Colo.
RPC 1.7 (b) (3) and cmt. ; see also model rule ABA 1.7 (b) (3). Remember that not all conflicts are useless. For example, if the lawyer cannot conclude that he or she will be able to offer each client competent and thorough representation, representation is prohibited. The lawyer cannot even ask for a waiver and cannot be represented on the basis of the clients` agreement. An obvious example would be for customers to be directly pitted against one another in the same dispute or in any other proceedings before a court. There are certainly other, less obvious scenarios that may constitute a non-consensual or impractical conflict of interest. At least for a demanding client, pre-appointments and pre-appointments that essentially involve related matters (with adequate protection for the client`s trust and secrets) are also ethically permitted.
Law firms like advanced renunciations. Prior declarations of waiver of disputes have two main purposes for law firms. First of all, they are theoretically an antidote to the reality that many law firms have several different groups of firms and lawyers around the world, resulting in many potential conflicts. Forward-looking extended waiver statements of indefinite duration may protect the Company from consequences if a real conflict is not detected, when it occurs. In addition, early waiver statements can improve a law firm`s end result by removing a barrier to opening new transactions that the firm would not otherwise be able to resume. In summary, a Colorado attorney in a conflict of interest situation probably cannot represent a client, even after full disclosure, informed consent, and written waiver, if the attorney`s conflict could prove harmful to the client. . . .