[wallabee4]

I consulted with a lawyer march 14. I decided not to retain him and went to fight my case w/out a lawyer. Subsequently. April 4th the person I'm bringing claim against has retained another lawyer from the same firm I originally consulted with. That's clearly a conflict for the lawyer, who I suspect did so unwittingly. I seem to be the only one who knows. But, what will happen? Will the lawyer retained by the person I'm seeking a claim against have to drop him as a client? Or is it simply that I am barred now from retaining the lawyer I orginially consulted with because the person I have a claim against retained that law firm first?

[Fr_Chuck]

Since you did not retain him, him or his firm should be free to be hired by the other side. But now most likely you just can not hire that firm to represent you now.

Did you pay them when you consulted with them? Or was it just a talk to see if you wanted to hire them.

[LisaB4657]

If there was a consultation and the case was discussed then I don't think that the other side can retain an attorney from the same firm.

Try making a motion to the judge that the other side's attorney should be disqualified.

[JudyKayTee]

If there was a consultation and the case was discussed then I don't think that the other side can retain an attorney from the same firm.

Try making a motion to the judge that the other side's attorney should be disqualified.

I don't know what type of case this is - I agree, make a Motion and try to disqualify the Attorney.

I have done personal injury cases where one side consulted and did not retain and then the other side went to the same law firm and DID retain.

I've worked in firms where every client name - or potential client name - was run through a database to make sure there was no conflict so this surprises me a little.

What does your new Attorney say?

[wallabee4]

FYI I don't currently have a lawyer on retainer. After my consult (I got it for free as part of my husband's health insurance benefit package) I decided to draft a letter to the person I have a claim against to see if we could simply settle the matter, as the lawyer I'd consulted with advised since it seems so relatively simpe a case (but, of course, he wanted to draft the letter for a retainer fee) many years ago I had a relatively simply claim against a dental insurance company and used a lawyer who took me on a contingency basis and I saw what he did in collecting facts and presenting them and I realized then that I could have done all that he'd done on my own as most people simply don't have time to do the research or aren't able to understand legal documents or pay attention to details and I am currently 'unemployed' (actually a wife/homemaker/MOM!) and frankly have the time/skills to do this research and substantiate my claim. So I figured I didn't have much to lose by drafting the initial letter myself. And if a settlement came I wouldn't have to share it with a lawyer. I'd figured, too, I could always retain the lawyer later if I felt over my head if the case had to go to court. Now I wonder if because I didn't retain first ithat now I have to get a new lawyer because the person I have the claim against unknowingly contacted the same law firm. Also, this is a small town. There aren't that many lawyers who specialize in this particular field and this law firm is recommended as the best on this. Besides, couldn't the lawyer I talked to give information I gave him to the new client as an unfair advantage to that client? He would know what evidence I have but I wouldn't be privvy to what evidence he may have to the contrary.

[JudyKayTee]

FYI I don't currently have a lawyer on retainer. After my consult (I got it for free as part of my husband's health insurance benefit package) I decided to go ahead and draft a letter to the person I have a claim against to see if we could simply settle the matter, as the lawyer I'd consulted with advised since it seems so relatively simpe a case (but, of course, he wanted to draft the letter for a retainer fee) many years ago I had a relatively simply claim against a dental insurance company and used a lawyer who took me on a contingency basis and I saw what he did in collecting facts and presenting them and I realized then that I could have done all that he'd done on my own as most people simply don't have time to do the research or aren't able to understand legal documents or pay attention to details and I am currently 'unemployed' (actually a wife/homemaker/MOM!) and frankly have the time/skills to do this research and substantiate my claim. So I figured I didn't have much to lose by drafting the initial letter myself. And if a settlement came I wouldn't have to share it with a lawyer. I'd figured, too, I could always retain the lawyer later if I felt over my head if the case had to go to court. Now I wonder if because I didn't retain first ithat now I have to get a new lawyer because the person I have the claim against unknowingly contacted the same law firm. Also, this is a small town. There aren't that many lawyers who specialize in this particular field and this law firm is recommended as the best on this. Besides, couldn't the lawyer I talked to give information I gave him to the new client as an unfair advantage to that client? he would know what evidence I have but I wouldn't be privvy to what evidence he may have to the contrary.

First, let me assure you you really DO have a job. Three in fact - Wife, Mom, Homemaker.

That being said - it's unethical for the Lawyer to disclose to the retained Lawyer - or, even worse, the client - anything you said. And it's unethical for Lawyer #2 to even run your name and look in your file.

I understand your concern, though, and it would make me uneasy. I think it boils down to two choices - (1) bring it to the attention of Attorney #1, tell him you are uneasy - if nothing else it will remind him what he can and cannot do (OR bring it to the attention of the Court but I don't think you're at that stage yet; OR (2) retain an Attorney and let him/her handle it.

As I said, Attorney #1 is ethics bound but...

Your head is on straight; you aren't posting ranting and raving and head in the clouds stuff (which I see all the time); hopefully you can handle this yourself, handle it well and this is not an issue. If something is said that you told Attorney #1 it should strike you right away - and you can handle it then.

Of course, a lot depends (generally) on the type of case and monetary amount.

[froggy7]

Actually, I am very curious about this. The OP says this is a small town, and this is the "best" law firm for the case. She doesn't have any contract with the firm. Wouldn't barring the firm from representing the other side unfairly penalize the other person? After all, if merely discussing the case is sufficient grounds for a conflict of interest, the OP could technically go and talk to all the lawyers in the town, not hire any of them, and thus prevent the other side from hiring affordable, convenient counsel.

Especially if the firm has more than one attorney. In which case, I can see not hiring the specific lawyer she talked to, but it shouldn't stop someone else in the firm from taking the case.

[JudyKayTee]

Actually, I am very curious about this. The OP says this is a small town, and this is the "best" law firm for the case. She doesn't have any contract with the firm. Wouldn't barring the firm from representing the other side unfairly penalize the other person? After all, if merely discussing the case is sufficient grounds for a conflict of interest, the OP could technically go and talk to all the lawyers in the town, not hire any of them, and thus prevent the other side from hiring affordable, convenient counsel.

Especially if the firm has more than one attorney. In which case, I can see not hiring the specific lawyer she talked to, but it shouldn't stop someone else in the firm from taking the case.

Well, in theory her potential case, potential retaining of an Attorney should not be disclosed. As I said, the Attorney is ethics bound not to disclose. Does it happen? I'm sure it does, whether by accident, inadvertence, I don't know. Life can be strange.

I don't know what type of information OP disclosed, if it's crucial to the case. This is a reason that I do not recommend "Attorney shopping." Someone posted not to long ago that she had consulted with over 30 Attorneys and I got the feeling she was looking to disqualify (from representing, I believe, her mother or husband or someone) every Attorney in Town! You do make a convincing argument BUT both sides have rights here and I think, because she spoke with the Attorney first, her rights are superior to those of the other side. If OP tries to get the Attorney off the case there is a very good chance she will be denied - based on what you have said.

I also find everybody's opinion on what is "best" is not necessarily correct - you don't have to be the "best" in Town if you have a solid legal argument. Depends on the case.

OP believes she talked to the Attorney first - perhaps the other side had already been there but with another Attorney. Always possible.

In a perfect World (and perhaps in this case the World is perfect) any conversation with one Attorney at a firm should not affect the case or representation of the other party by another Attorney in the same firm.

[tayyab119]

What is conflict of interest ?