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

2-Adversity to Former Clients

18-Consent and Prospective Waivers

A lawyer represented a client in successfully obtaining a certificate of need for a facility. Two years later, the lawyer represented another client in filing for a certificate of need for the same type of facility nearby. At the same time, the first client (although not represented by the same lawyer) sought a certificate of need for a facility that would compete with the second client's proposed facility.The Bar held that the lawyer had no conflict, because (1) the lawyer's former and current representations are not substantially related; and (2) the lawyer claims not to have acquired any confidential information from the first client. The Bar added that the first client had not consented to the lawyer's representation, even though it knowingly acquiesced in it for over five months before objecting [this LEO was reaffirmed in LEO 1065.]

Copyright 2000, Thomas E. Spahn