1239
|
| A lawyer represents a client on a number of matters. The client lost a business investment when one of the client's business partners started a competing business (the competing business successfully convinced the landlord to cancel a lease with the client's business and lease the same space to the new business). The lawyer was not representing the client in the business venture. The client later learns that the former business partner was being represented by the same law firm representing the client on unrelated matters. The Bar found this simultaneous representation improper, and held that it could not be cured by consent. [It is unclear why this situation does not involve permissible business adversity rather than impermissible legal adversary.] |