Why client informed consent is essential when two related lawyers represent opposing sides

Two related lawyers from different firms on opposing sides. It sounds like a setup for a movie plot, but in the real world it’s a tiny ethics puzzle with a clear answer: the client must give informed consent. Let me break down what that means, why it matters, and what it looks like in practice.

A quick map of the idea

• The core rule: when lawyers face a concurrent conflict of interest—think competing loyalties to two clients—their ability to represent each client hinges on the client’s informed consent, ideally confirmed in writing.

• The twist is not the lawyers’ relationship or the firms’ status. It’s whether the client understands the risks and still chooses to proceed.

• In plain terms: even if the lawyers are best friends or share a big client, the client’s choice governs the ethical path.

Why this rule exists: client autonomy matters

Here’s the thing about ethics in law: the client deserves a fair bargain. When two lawyers are tight because they’re related or part of the same broader network, that closeness shouldn’t silently tilt the playing field. The potential for conflicting interests is real—each side wants the most favorable outcome for their own client, and that can cloud judgment or create temptations to cut corners.

Rule 1.7 of the Model Rules (the ethics shield we’re talking about) makes a simple point with a heavy responsibility: a lawyer may represent a client with a conflict of interest only if the client is fully informed and consents to the arrangement. And yes, that consent should, in practice, be in writing. Why writing? It creates a clear record that the client truly understood the situation and agreed to proceed despite the conflict.

What does “informed consent” really look like?

Informed consent is more than a casual nod. It’s a frank briefing about:

• What the conflict is, and how it might affect loyalty, confidentiality, and decision-making.

• The practical implications: who makes which decisions, how information will be shared (or not shared) between sides, and what safeguards are in place to protect each client’s interests.

• Available alternatives: sometimes, the simplest path is to have separate counsel, or to proceed with one side and adjust the arrangement to remove the conflict.

If you’re studying this for the rules, you’ll notice the emphasis on transparency. The client should know not only the potential downsides but also the range of options. They should have time to ask questions and seek independent advice if needed. Then, and only then, can they give consent with real awareness.

Two related lawyers on opposite sides: what actually has to happen?

• The client must give informed consent. The fact that the lawyers are related or that they come from different firms doesn’t automatically pass the test. The client’s understanding and voluntary agreement are what matters.

• The consent should be affirmative and informed. The client should not feel coerced or rushed by the mere presence of a relationship between the attorneys.

• Writing is typically the safest route. A signed agreement or a formal written note helps protect everyone—the client, the lawyers, and the firms—from later disputes about what was understood.

• The firms’ approvals aren’t the deciding factor. While coordination and disclosure between firms are important, the decisive determinant remains the client’s consent.

A moment of nuance: when consent isn’t enough

There are cases where conflicts are so sweeping that even informed consent won’t do. If the conflict means the lawyers can’t competently and diligently represent their clients, or if there’s a risk that confidential information could be misused, counsel may need to withdraw or refuse representation. In other words, consent is essential, but it’s not a magic shield that cures every problem.

Common sense check: what about “screening” or “dividing” the teams?

You’ll hear about screening and walling off teams in some settings. That can help in certain scenarios, but it doesn’t erase a real conflict when two related lawyers are already aligned against each other. The client’s informed consent remains the linchpin. If the conflict is too deep to manage, the ethical move is to reassign or separate counsel. The goal is to protect each client’s autonomy and the integrity of the process.

A practical walkthrough you can picture

Let’s pretend two lawyers—call them Alex and Blair—are partners in separate firms. They both represent different parties in a civil dispute. They’re not just colleagues; they’re connected through a shared history, shared clients, and maybe even a family tie. The question isn’t about their friendship; it’s about whether the client can make an uncoerced choice to go forward with both sides having representation from these related attorneys.

Step-by-step process:

1. Full disclosure: Alex and Blair reveal the relationship and the potential conflicts to each client.

2. Clear explanation: they spell out how the conflicts might influence strategy, information sharing, and decision-making.

3. Discussion of options: the client learns about alternatives, such as hiring independent counsel for one or both sides, or opting for separate representation.

4. Informed, voluntary consent: the client agrees, understanding the risks and implications.

5. Written confirmation: the consent is documented to prevent later confusion.

6. Ongoing monitoring: even after consent, new conflicts can pop up. If that happens, another round of disclosures and possibly renewed consent or changes in representation may be required.

A few digressions that keep this grounded

• Real life isn’t black-and-white. You’ll see cases where the ethical line is fine, delicate, or blurred. That’s why the written, informed consent step is so crucial. It’s a shield against later allegations of inadequate disclosure.

• The client’s perspective matters more than you’d think. It might feel inconvenient to slow things down for a thorough briefing, but imagine being the client who discovers, after a deal is done, that your interests weren’t as protected as they should have been. That’s why this isn’t just a box to check—it’s about fair play and trust.

• Related but separate ideas matter, too. Confidentiality, reasonable diligence, and the duty to avoid misusing information are all in the same family. When conflicts loom, these duties don’t disappear; they shape how information is handled and how decisions are made.

What this means for your understanding of the rules

If you’re studying the Model Rules, remember the core idea: autonomy and transparency win the day here. The client has the ultimate say, provided they’re truly informed. The fact that the lawyers have a personal or professional link doesn’t change that fundamental right. The safest path is to ensure that consent is explicit, well-documented, and backed by a clear explanation of what the conflict means in practice.

A few practical takeaways for students and future lawyers

• Always start with the client’s awareness. Do they understand the conflict and the implications? If not, keep explaining.

• Document it. Written consent isn’t a formality; it protects both sides and reduces risk of later disputes.

• Don’t assume consent means “it’s fine.” Consent is a condition, not a cure-all. If the conflict can’t be managed in a way that preserves client interests, seek alternatives.

• Build a habit of proactive disclosure. If you foresee a possible conflict, flag it early and discuss it openly with the client and the opposing side’s counsel where appropriate.

In a nutshell

Two related lawyers from different firms can represent opposing sides only if the client gives informed consent. That consent should be voluntary, fully informed, and ideally captured in writing. The client’s autonomy is the compass here. The lawyers’ relationship is secondary; the client’s clarity and choice are what keep the process fair and principled.

If you’re exploring the ethics of legal practice, let this be a reminder: even in a world full of close ties and long histories, the client’s voice must stay central. And when it does, the path forward—though sometimes messy and slower than we’d like—stays honest, transparent, and above board. And that’s not just good ethics; it’s good lawyering.