Informal Admonition For Switching Sides In Divorce Case
The District of Columbia Office of Disciplinary Counsel has informally admonished an attorney who engaged in a conflict of interest by representing the husband in a divorce case after a consultation with the wife.
You met with W for about three hours at your home to discuss the divorce. W states that you advised her to file for divorce in the District of Columbia, rather than in Maryland. You also provided information to W regarding “safe house and women’s shelter information.” At the conclusion of the meeting, you informed W that you could not represent her because of your social and business relationship with H.
Approximately one year after her consultations with you, W filed her pro se divorce action in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, Family Division. Shortly thereafter, you entered your appearance in the matter on behalf of H. About two weeks later, W filed a motion with the court that she entitled, “Notice of a Conflict of Interest.” In her motion, she informed the court of her prior consultations with you, and she asked the court to disqualify you from representing H. The court granted W’s motion and removed you from the matter.
Disciplinary Counsel rejected the suggestion that there had been no attorney-client relationship with the wife.
When W spoke with you on the telephone and subsequently met with you, she did so for the purpose of seeking legal advice regarding her divorce from H. W states that she disclosed confidential information during the course of the conversations with you, before you advised her that you could not represent her. While you claim you do not remember the confidential information, both you and W agree (i) that you consulted with W, and (ii) that you provided W with advice regarding how and where to file for divorce from H. Based on these facts, we find that there was an attorney-client relationship between you and W.
The case is In re Roquelle Jeri, Bar Docket No, 2015 – D234 and can be found at this link.
The conduct likely violated the rule governing duties to a prospective client even if a full attorney-client was not formed. (Mike Frisch)