I filed for a non fault Divorce and an Atty Answered on behalf of my husband. Can that atty represent my husband and our jointly owned corporation at the same time.
When you say “jointly owned”, do you have anything to say about the operation of the company? In other words, do you just have a community share in the stock or do you have a corporate position -like treasurer or whatever?
Did the attorney represent the company prior to the divorce representation?
For anyone coming to this thread because of the conflict issue, here are a few points:
A “conflict” can be in the eye of the beholder. In general terms a conflict comes about when a particular lawyer has represented one or both sides and because of that representation has knowledge that could be used against a particular client.
OK, that may sound sort of simple, but there are huge gray areas that are hard to sort out. As a matter of fact, lawyers spend a great deal of time in mandatory continuing education that frequently involves the conflict issue. There are many cases on conflicts, but there are a few real-world points to consider.
For one thing, it is often prudent for the lawyer to withdraw his or her representation if there is even a hint of conflict. That can be easy if, for example, a lawyer represented a wife in a divorce and now the husband wants to hire the lawyer to sue the former wife in a property dispute. That is easy to spot the conflict because the lawyer could obviously be in a position to use knowledge regarding the parties against the wife.
It is a bit harder in Pamelot’s case if the lawyer who represented the company never represented the wife in any capacity and the wife has no role in the company. Still, it would probably be prudent for the lawyer to withdraw -especially if Pamelot were to make clear that she believes a conflict exists.
Even if a conflict clearly exists, the parties can waive the conflict issue through informed consent. So, if the lawyer in Pamela’s case disclosed the possible conflict and why it might be a conflict, Pamela could agree to allow the representation.
As you can see, this can be a complicated area -which is why I say it is generally prudent to withdraw if conflict is at all relevant to representing a client.
If Pamelot feels there is a confict of interest, what’s the correct action? I tend to think she should ask to have him removed from the case because she perceives it is a conflict of interest for him to be an attorney representing a corproation she jointly owns. This will undoubtledly become part of a divorce action, so how would it be possible for him to represent both her interests and the corporation’s interests?
I do not think that this is possible on his part