Top Law Schools

I'm curious whether my relationship with my husband creates a conflict of interest. I am spending the summer as a SA at a large firm. Most of the work I have done has been for a practice group that represents clients suing companies in a particular industry. I enjoy this work very much and I am close to everyone in this group. I would like to join this group after graduation. My boyfriend, however, is in upper management at a company that this group frequently sues. Although his work is far removed from the subject matter of the lawsuits, I am concerned that the firm could see this as a conflict. He is not an attorney - his work involves strategy and emerging markets.

I am worried that this could prevent me from getting an offer or cause the firm to rescind any offer that I receive once they find out. I have asked one associate at the firm that I trust about this and he thought it was a non-issue, but he wasn't sure.

How concerned should I be? Should I disclose his employment now?

Thanks.

...do you have both a husband and a boyfriend?
ETA I think the bigger conflict is between the boyfriend and husband

Halp wrote:...do you have both a husband and a boyfriend?
ETA I think the bigger conflict is between the boyfriend and husband

That's an embarrassing mistake. I only have the one husband.

This could definitely be a conflict of interest. Also, it could be a conflict of interest now, not just if you are a full time associate. I would disclose it ASAP if you are working on any matters where your husband’s company is adverse. This is not something to mess around with.

lawfan2012 wrote:This could definitely be a conflict of interest. Also, it could be a conflict of interest now, not just if you are a full time associate. I would disclose it ASAP if you are working on any matters where your husband’s company is adverse. This is not something to mess around with.

I believe the MRPC only require client consent if the spouse is also an attorney:

MRPC wrote:A lawyer related to another lawyer as parent, child, sibling or spouse shall not represent in any matter a client whose interests differ from those of another party to the matter who the lawyer knows is represented by the other lawyer unless the client consents to the representation after full disclosure and the lawyer concludes that the lawyer can adequately represent the interests of the client.

That said, OP's state may impose stricter rules than the MRPC (obviously), and just as a best practice if I were in OP's shoes I would disclose this to the firm. The most likely outcome is that the firm discloses this to the client and gets a waiver (OP mentions that her spouse's work is "far removed" from the subject of the litigation).

I said it could be a conflict. The applicable model rule would be Rule 1.7, which provides that “a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if ... (2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by ... a personal interest of the lawyer.” Someone’s spouse being employed by the opposing party COULD be a personal interest that poses a significant risk of materially limiting the representation. As a junior lawyer (or SA) you should disclose that ASAP so that the firm (and client, if necessary) can work through the issues. I would not, as a junior certainly, make the determination that it is not a conflict myself without disclosing it.

It seems like this could result in not receiving a full-time offer. That's what is scaring me. I'll talk to HR ASAP.

bella26 wrote:It seems like this could result in not receiving a full-time offer. That's what is scaring me. I'll talk to HR ASAP.

That’s hard to predict without knowing the details of the firm’s business and how many clients sue your husband’s company, what the company is, your husband’s role and seniority, etc. Lots of lawyers have potential personal conflicts and work at law firms so I don’t think it would automatically mean you don’t get an offer.

To be clear, I wouldn’t disclose unless you are working on a case where your husband’s company is adverse, and then I would disclose to the partner or senior associate on the matter, not to HR.

Disclose, now. Firms take this realllly seriously.

They won’t no offer you because of this but they will make you sign papers.

Happens all the time.

lawfan2012 wrote:I said it could be a conflict. The applicable model rule would be Rule 1.7, which provides that “a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if ... (2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by ... a personal interest of the lawyer.” Someone’s spouse being employed by the opposing party COULD be a personal interest that poses a significant risk of materially limiting the representation. As a junior lawyer (or SA) you should disclose that ASAP so that the firm (and client, if necessary) can work through the issues. I would not, as a junior certainly, make the determination that it is not a conflict myself without disclosing it.

My previous post quoted comment 11 to Rule 1.7, which is the comment that specifically addresses the "closely related by blood or marriage" scenario. I believe the official comment is the most accurate interpretation of what the MRPC's drafters intended.

That said, as I took pains to point out, 1) OP's state may go beyond what Rule 1.7 requires, and 2) In any case, I recommend disclosing ASAP as a best practice. Certainly if I were in OP's shoes I would disclose. I'll even go further and clarify that most BigLaw firms - as a matter of policy and practice - routinely go beyond what the applicable ethical rules require in terms of making conflict disclosures and seeking waivers. Pushing right up to the limits of what the legal ethics rules permit is often unwise in terms of ensuring client satisfaction. Consistent with that, firms want associates to err on the side of (over)disclosure.

QContinuum wrote:

lawfan2012 wrote:I said it could be a conflict. The applicable model rule would be Rule 1.7, which provides that “a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if ... (2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by ... a personal interest of the lawyer.” Someone’s spouse being employed by the opposing party COULD be a personal interest that poses a significant risk of materially limiting the representation. As a junior lawyer (or SA) you should disclose that ASAP so that the firm (and client, if necessary) can work through the issues. I would not, as a junior certainly, make the determination that it is not a conflict myself without disclosing it.

My previous post quoted comment 11 to Rule 1.7, which is the comment that specifically addresses the "closely related by blood or marriage" scenario. I believe the official comment is the most accurate interpretation of what the MRPC's drafters intended.

That said, as I took pains to point out, 1) OP's state may go beyond what Rule 1.7 requires, and 2) In any case, I recommend disclosing ASAP as a best practice. Certainly if I were in OP's shoes I would disclose. I'll even go further and clarify that most BigLaw firms - as a matter of policy and practice - routinely go beyond what the applicable ethical rules require in terms of making conflict disclosures and seeking waivers. Pushing right up to the limits of what the legal ethics rules permit is often unwise in terms of ensuring client satisfaction. Consistent with that, firms want associates to err on the side of (over)disclosure.

While it doesn’t matter for the purposes of answering OP’s question, I respectfully disagree with your reading of the comment as limiting the situations where a conflict could arise based on family relationship. The comment sets forth a scenario where the likelihood of a conflict is so clear that the lawyer must inform the client under Rule 1.7, but doesn’t limit at all the applicability of the rule. The rule applies where, for whatever personal reason, the lawyer’s representation may be materially limited. If a lawyer’s personal relationship with someone employed by an adverse party creates an actual conflict for the lawyer, Rule 1.7 applies regardless of whether the facts fit into the scenario described in the comment.

This is a serious issue you need to raise ASAP. The professional responsibility / ethical rules vary from state to state, and some firms go further than the baseline requirement, but my spouse is a senior person in an industry and I avoid work relating to that industry because the conflicts are too much of a PitA.