Why Can’t We Act for Both the Adamses and the Bognars?

Question from Veno, Why Can’t We Act for Both the Adamses and the Bognars?

Answer from AI:

When considering whether to act for both the Adamses and the Bognars, we must address the issue of **conflict of interest**. A conflict of interest arises when a lawyer’s ability to represent one client is materially limited by responsibilities to another client, a former client, or a personal interest of the lawyer.

Understanding Conflict of Interest

A conflict of interest can occur in various forms, such as:

• Direct conflict: When the interests of two clients are directly opposed.
• Potential conflict: When there is a significant risk that the lawyer’s representation of one client will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client.

Legal Framework and Guidelines

In New Zealand, the **Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008** (ROCCC) provides clear guidelines on handling conflicts of interest. Key rules include:

• Rule 6.1: A lawyer must not act for more than one client on a matter where there is a more than negligible risk that the lawyer may be unable to discharge the obligations owed to one or more of the clients.
• Rule 6.1.1: If a conflict of interest arises, the lawyer must cease to act for one or more of the clients unless all affected clients give informed consent.
• Rule 6.1.2: Even with informed consent, a lawyer must not act if there is a more than negligible risk of being unable to discharge the obligations owed to any client.

Steps in Making the Decision

To explain the decision to the Adamses, we can outline the following steps:

1. Identify Potential Conflicts: We first identified that representing both the Adamses and the Bognars could lead to a conflict of interest. This is because their interests might not align perfectly, and our ability to represent one party could be compromised by our obligations to the other.
2. Assess the Risk: We assessed the risk of conflict and determined that there is a more than negligible risk that we might not be able to fulfill our obligations to both parties effectively.
3. Consult the ROCCC Rules: We referred to the ROCCC rules, particularly Rule 6.1, which prohibits us from acting for more than one client in such situations unless informed consent is obtained and there is no more than negligible risk.
4. Evaluate Informed Consent: Even if both parties were willing to give informed consent, we concluded that the risk of conflict is more than negligible, making it inappropriate for us to act for both parties.
5. Decision to Decline Representation: Based on the above steps, we decided that we cannot act for both the Adamses and the Bognars to ensure we adhere to our professional obligations and maintain the integrity of our representation.

Next Steps

In our next meeting with the Adamses, we will explain the situation using the steps outlined above. We will emphasize the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest to ensure that we can provide the best possible representation.

Consulting a Legal Professional

For personalized advice and to explore alternative solutions, we recommend that the Adamses consult with a legal professional. This will help them understand their options and ensure that their interests are adequately protected.

For more information on the ROCCC rules, you can refer to the [New Zealand Law Society’s website](https://www.lawsociety.org.nz/for-lawyers/regulatory-requirements/rules-and-regulations/).

By following these guidelines, we can ensure that we maintain our professional integrity and provide the best possible service to our clients.