You will also wonder if an attorney can represent both parties in the divorce. Unfortunately, in most cases, the answer would be no. Representing both parties translates into a conflict of interest, even if the spouses agree to all the terms and participate in a non-confrontational breakup. Speaking of ethics, I think it would be unethical for a lawyer not to argue on behalf of one of his clients.
An attorney is required to jealously represent each of his clients. If this means that the lawyer has to argue both sides of a problem, as long as there is no conflict of interest between his two clients, then the lawyer must do so. It's not uncommon to think that, because you and your spouse are friendly, it would be much easier and less expensive if you could have an attorney for both of you. However, a lawyer cannot represent both parties.
An attorney is ethically prohibited from representing two persons with conflicting interests who are in a dispute. The parties may attempt mediation without the use of lawyers, but the mediator cannot give legal advice to either party. The mediator can only help the two parties to reach an agreement. An Experienced and Skilled New York City (NYC) Criminal Defense Attorney Can Make the Difference Between a Long Jail Sentence and Having Your Case Dismissed.
For example, when the lawyer represents different clients in related matters and one client refuses to consent to the disclosure necessary to allow the other client to make an informed decision, the lawyer cannot adequately ask the latter to give his or her consent. If the plaintiff so wishes, he can request that the defendant do his duty or compensate him for the damage he has caused. Therefore, a lawyer may seek to establish or adjust a relationship between clients on an amicable and mutually advantageous basis; for example, by helping to organize a business in which two or more clients are entrepreneurs, resolving the financial reorganization of a company in which two or more clients have an interest or the organization of a distribution of assets in the liquidation of an estate. For example, counsel may reasonably conclude that failure to disclose one client's trade secrets to another client will not adversely affect the representation involved in a joint venture between clients and agree to keep that information confidential with the informed consent of both clients.
In order to comply with conflict of interest rules, the lawyer must make clear the lawyer's relationship with the parties involved. If you are charged with a criminal offence and must appear in criminal court, it is an advantage for you to have an attorney who has more experience defending cases like yours in the same court where your case will be heard. A lawyer is prohibited from engaging in sexual relations with a client unless the sexual relationship is prior to the formation of the client-lawyer relationship. A version of this column originally appeared in Michigan Lawyers Weekly, a sister publication of The Daily Record.
Similarly, a lawyer seeking to represent an opponent in a class action lawsuit usually does not need the consent of an anonymous class member whom the lawyer represents in an unrelated matter. Signing a contract without at least consulting an attorney or having an attorney review the agreement can cause you to give up and give up important legal rights. For example, in some states, substantive law states that the same lawyer cannot represent more than one defendant in a capital case, even with the consent of clients, and under federal criminal laws, certain representations of a former government attorney are prohibited, despite the informed consent of the former customer. When the lawyer represents more than one client, the issue of consentibility must be resolved for each client.
Therefore, the lawyer does not normally need to obtain that person's consent before representing a client by suing the person in an unrelated matter. A lawyer may receive payment from a source other than the client, including a co-client, if the client is informed of that fact and consents and the agreement does not compromise the attorney's duty of loyalty or independent judgment towards the client. . .
