# Legal ramifications of consulting with attorney just to create conflict of interest?



## wilson (Nov 5, 2012)

Sometimes I've heard that a spouse considering divorce should have a consultation with all the top divorce attorneys in order to prevent their spouse from using those attorneys. Since the attorney consulted with the first spouse, it would then be a conflict of interest to represent the second spouse.

First off, how true is that? Does having an initial consultation with an attorney mean that attorney would not be able to represent the other spouse?

Second, could the first spouse get in trouble for using that tactic? If it was shown to be done for punitive reasons rather than an actual desire to find the right attorney, could the other spouse sue or something? The justification might be that they are now unable to get reasonable representation because of the first spouse's actions.


----------



## notmyjamie (Feb 5, 2019)

I would think it would be hard to prove it was done for the express purpose of blocking the spouse from using that attorney. 

I haven’t tried to do it (had no reason luckily) but when I signed up for mediation and asked about having my own lawyer also I was told it would have to be a separate lawyer, from a separate firm. They also said once we came for the mediation consult they wouldn’t be able to represent either of us if we decided not to use mediation but each have our own lawyers.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

wilson said:


> Sometimes I've heard that a spouse considering divorce should have a consultation with all the top divorce attorneys in order to prevent their spouse from using those attorneys. Since the attorney consulted with the first spouse, it would then be a conflict of interest to represent the second spouse.


When I was going through my divorce, I asked my friend's spouse, who happens to be a judge, what he thought about this tactic. He felt that it was not the smartest. In his experience, when one party had a great lawyer and the other party did not, it tended to extend the divorce process unnecessarily due mostly to the ineptitude/inexperience of the lawyers representing the couple. His opinion was that if the goal is to get through the divorce process as efficiently as possible, it was in both parties interest to have good lawyers on both sides. 




wilson said:


> First off, how true is that? Does having an initial consultation with an attorney mean that attorney would not be able to represent the other spouse?


Where I live, most of the best lawyers charge initial consultations ranging from $250 - $1,000 for an hour. This is one of those things were the old adage is spot on....you get what you pay for.



wilson said:


> Second, could the first spouse get in trouble for using that tactic? If it was shown to be done for punitive reasons rather than an actual desire to find the right attorney, could the other spouse sue or something? The justification might be that they are now unable to get reasonable representation because of the first spouse's actions.


I am curious about this too. Any lawyers in the house?


----------



## 20yr (Apr 19, 2019)

Lila said:


> When I was going through my divorce, I asked my friend's spouse, who happens to be a judge, what he thought about this tactic. He felt that it was not the smartest. In his experience, when one party had a great lawyer and the other party did not, it tended to extend the divorce process unnecessarily due mostly to the ineptitude/inexperience of the lawyers representing the couple. His opinion was that if the goal is to get through the divorce process as efficiently as possible, it was in both parties interest to have good lawyers on both sides.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have heard people suggest this. Especially where most attys around me will at least speak to you for no charge and give an overview of the process. It would not be unusual for someone to meet with 3-4 attys. However, if someone met with 10 attys, I think that would be a red flag for a judge that someone is playing games. Judges have a lot of leeway in Family Court and that could backfire.

Also, some of the best attys will be at larger firms. If I met with one atty but did not hire them, it would be easy enough to put up safeguards so that another atty at the same firm could represent H.

My advice would be to not waste time playing those games and find yourself an atty who is a good fit for you in cost and experience.


----------



## honcho (Oct 5, 2013)

20yr said:


> I have heard people suggest this. Especially where most attys around me will at least speak to you for no charge and give an overview of the process. It would not be unusual for someone to meet with 3-4 attys. However, if someone met with 10 attys, I think that would be a red flag for a judge that someone is playing games. Judges have a lot of leeway in Family Court and that could backfire.
> 
> Also, some of the best attys will be at larger firms. If I met with one atty but did not hire them, it would be easy enough to put up safeguards so that another atty at the same firm could represent H.
> 
> My advice would be to not waste time playing those games and find yourself an atty who is a good fit for you in cost and experience.


It could vary from state to state but the free consultation doesn't cut it. You have to essentially hire the lawyer, even if it just for an initial consultation. Once you establish a lawyer/client relationship then the other party can't because of conflict of interest. The free consultation doesn't create a lawyer/client privilege.


----------



## 20yr (Apr 19, 2019)

honcho said:


> It could vary from state to state but the free consultation doesn't cut it. You have to essentially hire the lawyer, even if it just for an initial consultation. Once you establish a lawyer/client relationship then the other party can't because of conflict of interest. The free consultation doesn't create a lawyer/client privilege.


Our rules are a little more strict:

_"Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.18: Duties to prospective client

a)A person who consults with a lawyer about the possibility of forming a client-lawyer relationship with respect to a matter is a prospective client. 

(b)Even when no client-lawyer relationship ensues, a lawyer who has learned confidential information from a prospective client shall not use or reveal that information, except as Rule 1.9 would permit with respect to confidential information of a former client. 

(c) A lawyer subject to paragraph (b)* shall not represent a client with interests materially adverse to those of a prospective client in the same or a substantially related matter if the lawyer received confidential information from the prospective client that could be significantly harmful to that person in the matter*, except as provided in paragraph (d). If a lawyer is disqualified from representation under this paragraph, no lawyer in a firm with which that lawyer is associated may knowingly undertake or continue representation in such a matter, except as provided in paragraph (d). 

(d)When the lawyer has received disqualifying information as defined in paragraph (c), representation is permissible if: 

(1) both the affected client and the prospective client have given informed consent, confirmed in writing, or: 

(2) the lawyer who received the information took reasonable measures to avoid exposure to more disqualifying information than was reasonably necessary to determine whether to represent the prospective client; and 

(i) the disqualified lawyer is timely screened, as defined in Rule 1.10(e), from any participation in the matter and is apportioned no part of the fee therefrom; and 

(ii) written notice is promptly given to the prospective client. "_

So, even if the atty is not hired, prospective client may reveal confidential info which can block other spouse from hiring them. The conflict can be waived but most attys will steer clear and not go through that process.


----------



## Tilted 1 (Jul 23, 2019)

20yr said:


> honcho said:
> 
> 
> > It could vary from state to state but the free consultation doesn't cut it. You have to essentially hire the lawyer, even if it just for an initial consultation. Once you establish a lawyer/client relationship then the other party can't because of conflict of interest. The free consultation doesn't create a lawyer/client privilege.
> ...


Nice!


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

some thoughts

https://www.rosen.com/divorce/divorcevideos/way-keep-spouse-hiring-particular-lawyer/


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

wilson said:


> Sometimes I've heard that a spouse considering divorce should have a consultation with all the top divorce attorneys in order to prevent their spouse from using those attorneys. Since the attorney consulted with the first spouse, it would then be a conflict of interest to represent the second spouse.
> 
> First off, how true is that? Does having an initial consultation with an attorney mean that attorney would not be able to represent the other spouse?
> 
> Second, could the first spouse get in trouble for using that tactic? If it was shown to be done for punitive reasons rather than an actual desire to find the right attorney, could the other spouse sue or something? The justification might be that they are now unable to get reasonable representation because of the first spouse's actions.


Personally I wouldn't play that game, it seems very childish to me.


----------



## Sukisue1234 (Jan 17, 2018)

I would think that there are enough good attorneys in your area that wouldn't really be a problem if you have enough money to pay a high end attorney to represent your divorce.


----------

