These summaries were prepared by McGuireWoods LLP lawyer Thomas E. Spahn. They are based on the letter opinions issued by the Virginia State Bar. Any editorial comments reflect Mr. Spahn's current personal views, and not the opinions of the Virginia State Bar, McGuireWoods or its clients. 
 Back to main menu

  Print This Leo
LEO NumTopicsSummary

18-Consent and Prospective Waivers

22-Interviews with Prospective Clients

Two passengers and a driver interviewed a lawyer about representing them in an action against the other driver in an accident. However, the lawyer eventually determined that the two passengers should sue their driver. The lawyer told them that the lawyer could represent the two passengers against the driver only if the driver consented. The driver gave oral consent but later refused to provide written consent. The lawyer could not represent the two passengers, because the driver had essentially refused to confirm her oral consent (although oral consent is permissible, the Bar implied that a refusal to immediately sign a written confirmation essentially nullified the consent). [The summary of the LEO incorrectly states that "consent may be withdrawn by a former client at any time."]

Copyright 2000, Thomas E. Spahn