Conflict Of Interest - When To Declare?

[brandyrose]

Is it proper or not for a legal practice to take information (considerable and detailed) from a potential client when a conflict of interest is there from the start?
At what point are legals meant to disclose a conflict of interest? (I accept its good for the person to ask about this first thing themselves but this hasn't happened here as didn't even think about it)

They tell the person at the end of a lengthly interview session that they already represent the other party and are unable to help.

Now, they have this person's information and it appears the person is at a disadvantage as they are privy to detail, thoughts and intentions being considered against their client. Can they use this information?

Any thoughts/info on this much appreciated. I'm sorry if this particular aspect has been covered already somewhere -if so I couldn't find it . Thank you.

[Peter Pedant]

This is not an answer

Hi BR I was wondering what the intellects would say about that.

This has happened to me: one where I was recovering a debt from a dead man and needed to know who had the will. One firm said we cant discuss this unless you give us info so I proved the debt in painful detail and they replied: Dont have the will and neva heard of him ! The spat ended with the senior partner saying I have no intention of continuing this discussion without a hint of irony in her voice. and I undertook never to recommend the firm to anyone unless I didnt like them. Incredibly this account is anonymised not for libel but because I cant remember who they were !

Another was over The Wall. Barristers gave an opinion on ownership of The Wall and we found one in the firm was the sibling of the lawyer advising the other side. Coupled with a third lawyer commenting 'I have read the opinion on the Walll and I always thought it was wrong, you know.'

Hahaha o and a third: internal disci and my man was accused of fraud and commented PP is doing this because I think the union man is in cahoots with the employer.
[ the union mans comments had been like ' o come on answer them : they have a point you know.' ]
and up jumped the employers side and said oh lets get him here and ask him !
and I said no you cant do that: all his discussion are with this man are legally absolutely privileged.

and things were so bad that I actually thought the employer would say o never mind that lets get him anyway....[.they didnt]

[tonywiltshire]

If you are dealing with a firm regulated by the SRA I am surprised that the possible conflict of interest was not mentioned as soon as it became obvious, though it is quite possible the person conducting the interview having heard fresh information has decided not to represent either party.

[brandyrose]

Thanks Tony - that is helpful.

[FredPuli43]

You also get two separate solicitors in the same firm taking instructions or acting,in all innocence,,for opposing sides, without knowing that. i once saw a matrimonial dispute in the magistrates' court, where separate counsel were instructed, each spouse having gone to the same firm in such circumstances. One solicitor will withdraw and another firm instructed. The one who withdraws will not divulge anything in his instructions, from the lay client, to the colleague

[brandyrose]

Thank you Fred, much appreciated. This makes sense. You can feel vulnerable but once you understand it from the point of view of the practice you can feel abit better - and especially if they are a reputable firm.

[FredPuli43]

And brandyrose, I can improve on that. I once turned up, instructed, in a matrimonial, against a spouse who was unrepresented. The case started, that spouse was in the witness box, and I started to cross-examine her. Seeing how it was going, the court asked her whether she had not tried to get representation. She delved into her bag and produced a temporary legal aid certificate in favour of my instructing solicitor. On seeing this, I said to the court "It appears that I am cross-examining my own client!" The court fell about trying to stop laughing.

What had happened was that my brief instructions were completely ambiguous and I reasonably concluded that I was for the husband. Of course, as it turned out, both parties had gone to the same firm. It may be that I was meant to appear for the husband, but equally, I could have been for the wife. However, this became the subject of much mirth, and much exaggeration in the retelling, in my chambers and at the Bar, for years.

I once got a judgment without even being in court, because I couldn't find the right room in the High Court. The Master (judge) in the case proceeded in my absence, observing to the other side "I am not surprised counsel has not turned up. Your case is so weak that he decided not to bother" It fair encourages you to have faith in lawyers and the legal system,doesn't it?

[boxtops]

I'd declare from the outset if there is conflict of interest, IMO