# Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 1.7: Rule 1.7. Conﬂict of Interest: Current Clients

> Wyoming · Court rules · In force

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_WY_RULEPROFCONDATTOLAW_R1_7

## Section

- **Citation:** Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 1.7
- **Heading:** Rule 1.7. Conﬂict of Interest: Current Clients
- **Jurisdiction:** Wyoming
- **Kind:** Court rules
- **Status:** In force
- **Text as of:** August 14, 2026
- **Source:** Compiled text
- **Location:** Wyoming Court Rules / Rules of Professional Conduct for Attorneys at Law / Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 1.7

## Text

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client
if the representation involves a concurrent conﬂict of interest. A concurrent
conﬂict of interest exists if:
(1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another
client; or
(2) there is a signiﬁcant risk that the representation of one or more clients
will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client,
a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.
(b) Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conﬂict of interest under
paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a client if:
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide
competent and diligent representation to each affected client;
(2) the representation is not prohibited by law;
(3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one
client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation
or other proceeding before a tribunal; and
(4) each affected client gives informed consent, conﬁrmed in a writing.
Comment. — General Principles. [1] Loyalty and independent judgment are
essential elements in the lawyer’s relationship to a client. Concurrent conﬂicts
of interest can arise from the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former
client or a third person or from the lawyer’s own interests. For speciﬁc Rules
regarding certain concurrent conﬂicts of interest, see Rule 1.8. For former client
conﬂicts of interest, see Rule 1.9. For conﬂicts of interest involving prospective
clients, see Rule 1.18. For deﬁnitions of “informed consent” and “conﬁrmed in
writing,” see Rule 1.0(f) and (c)
esponsibilities to another client, a former
client or a third person or from the lawyer’s own interests. For speciﬁc Rules
regarding certain concurrent conﬂicts of interest, see Rule 1.8. For former client
conﬂicts of interest, see Rule 1.9. For conﬂicts of interest involving prospective
clients, see Rule 1.18. For deﬁnitions of “informed consent” and “conﬁrmed in
writing,” see Rule 1.0(f) and (c).
[2] Resolution of a conﬂict of interest problem under this Rule requires the
lawyer to: 1) clearly identify the client or clients; 2) determine whether a conﬂict
of interest exists; 3) decide whether the representation may be undertaken
despite the existence of a conﬂict, i.e., whether the conﬂict is consentable; and 4)
if so, consult with the clients affected under paragraph (a) and obtain their
informed consent, conﬁrmed in writing. The clients affected under paragraph
(a) include both of the clients referred to in paragraph (a)(1) and the one or more
clients whose representation might be materially limited under paragraph
(a)(2).
[3] A conﬂict of interest may exist before representation is undertaken, in
which event the representation must be declined, unless the lawyer obtains the
informed consent of each client under the conditions of paragraph (b). To
determine whether a conﬂict of interest exists, a lawyer should adopt reasonable
procedures, appropriate for the size and type of ﬁrm and practice, to determine
in both litigation and non-litigation matters the persons and issues involved.
See also, Comment to Rule 5.1. Ignorance caused by a failure to institute such
procedures will not excuse a lawyer’s violation of this Rule. As to whether a
client-lawyer relationship exists or, having once been established, is continuing,
see Comment to Rule 1.3 and Scope.
[4] If a conﬂict arises after representation has been undertaken, the lawyer
ordinarily must withdraw from the representation, unless the lawyer has
obtained the informed consent of the client under the conditions of paragraph
cuse a lawyer’s violation of this Rule. As to whether a
client-lawyer relationship exists or, having once been established, is continuing,
see Comment to Rule 1.3 and Scope.
[4] If a conﬂict arises after representation has been undertaken, the lawyer
ordinarily must withdraw from the representation, unless the lawyer has
obtained the informed consent of the client under the conditions of paragraph
(b). See Rule 1.16. Where more than one client is involved, whether the lawyer
may continue to represent any of the clients is determined both by the lawyer’s
ability to comply with duties owed to the former client and by the lawyer’s
ability to represent adequately the remaining client or clients, given the lawyer’s
duties to the former client. See Rule 1.9. See also, Comments [5] and [29].
[5] Unforeseeable developments, such as changes in corporate and other
organizational affiliations or the addition or realignment of parties in litigation, might create conﬂicts in the midst of a representation, as when a company
sued by the lawyer on behalf of one client is bought by another client represented
by the lawyer in an unrelated matter. Depending on the circumstances, the
lawyer may have the option to withdraw from one of the representations in
order to avoid the conﬂict. The lawyer must seek court approval where necessary
and take steps to minimize harm to the clients. See Rule 1.16. The lawyer must
continue to protect the conﬁdences of the client from whose representation the
lawyer has withdrawn. See Rule 1.9(c).
Identifying Conﬂicts of Interest: Directly Adverse. [6] Loyalty to a current
client prohibits undertaking representation directly adverse to that client
without that client’s informed consent. Thus, absent consent, a lawyer may not
act as an advocate in one matter against a person the lawyer represents in some
other matter, even when the matters are wholly unrelated
has withdrawn. See Rule 1.9(c).
Identifying Conﬂicts of Interest: Directly Adverse. [6] Loyalty to a current
client prohibits undertaking representation directly adverse to that client
without that client’s informed consent. Thus, absent consent, a lawyer may not
act as an advocate in one matter against a person the lawyer represents in some
other matter, even when the matters are wholly unrelated. The client as to whom
the representation is directly adverse is likely to feel betrayed, and the resulting
damage to the client-lawyer relationship is likely to impair the lawyer’s ability
to represent the client effectively. In addition, the client on whose behalf the
adverse representation is undertaken reasonably may fear that the lawyer will
pursue that client’s case less effectively out of deference to the other client, i.e.,
that the representation may be materially limited by the lawyer’s interest in
retaining the current client. Similarly, a directly adverse conﬂict may arise
when a lawyer is required to cross-examine a client who appears as a witness in
a lawsuit involving another client, as when the testimony will be damaging to
the client who is represented in the lawsuit. On the other hand, simultaneous
representation in unrelated matters of clients whose interests are only economically adverse, such as representation of competing economic enterprises in
unrelated litigation, does not ordinarily constitute a conﬂict of interest and thus
may not require consent of the respective clients.
[7] Directly adverse conﬂicts can also arise in transactional matters. For
example, if a lawyer is asked to represent the seller of a business in negotiations
with a buyer represented by the lawyer, not in the same transaction but in
another, unrelated matter, the lawyer could not undertake the representation
without the informed consent of each client.
Identifying Conﬂicts of Interest: Material Limitation
tly adverse conﬂicts can also arise in transactional matters. For
example, if a lawyer is asked to represent the seller of a business in negotiations
with a buyer represented by the lawyer, not in the same transaction but in
another, unrelated matter, the lawyer could not undertake the representation
without the informed consent of each client.
Identifying Conﬂicts of Interest: Material Limitation. [8] Even where there is
no direct adverseness, a conﬂict of interest exists if there is a signiﬁcant risk that
the lawyer’s ability to consider, recommend or carry out an appropriate course
of action for the client will be materially limited as a result of the lawyer’s other
responsibilities or interests. For example, a lawyer asked to represent several
individuals seeking to form a joint venture is likely to be materially limited in
the lawyer’s ability to recommend or advocate all possible positions that each
might take because of the lawyer’s duty of loyalty to the others. The conﬂict in
effect forecloses alternatives that would otherwise be available to the client. The
mere possibility of subsequent harm does not itself require disclosure and
consent. The critical questions are the likelihood that a difference in interests
will eventuate and, if it does, whether it will materially interfere with the
lawyer’s independent professional judgment in considering alternatives or
foreclose courses of action that reasonably should be pursued on behalf of the
client.
Lawyer’s Responsibilities to Former Clients and Other Third Persons. [9] In
addition to conﬂicts with other current clients, a lawyer’s duties of loyalty and
independence may be materially limited by responsibilities to former clients
under Rule 1.9 or by the lawyer’s responsibilities to other persons, such as
ﬁduciary duties arising from a lawyer’s service as a trustee, executor or
corporate director.
Personal Interest Conﬂicts. [10] The lawyer’s own interests should not be
permitted to have an adverse effect on representation of a client
loyalty and
independence may be materially limited by responsibilities to former clients
under Rule 1.9 or by the lawyer’s responsibilities to other persons, such as
ﬁduciary duties arising from a lawyer’s service as a trustee, executor or
corporate director.
Personal Interest Conﬂicts. [10] The lawyer’s own interests should not be
permitted to have an adverse effect on representation of a client. For example, if
the probity of a lawyer’s own conduct in a transaction is in serious question, it
may be difficult or impossible for the lawyer to give a client detached advice.
Similarly, when a lawyer has discussions concerning possible employment with
an opponent of the lawyer’s client, or with a law ﬁrm representing the opponent,
such discussions could materially limit the lawyer’s representation of the client.
In addition, a lawyer may not allow related business interests to affect
representation, for example, by referring clients to an enterprise in which the
lawyer has an undisclosed ﬁnancial interest. See Rule 1.8 for speciﬁc Rules
pertaining to a number of personal interest conﬂicts, including business
transactions with clients. See also, Rule 1.10 (personal interest conﬂicts under
Rule 1.7 ordinarily are not imputed to other lawyers in a law ﬁrm).
[11] When lawyers representing different clients in the same matter or in
substantially related matters are closely related by blood or marriage, there
may be a signiﬁcant risk that client conﬁdences will be revealed and that the
lawyer’s family relationship will interfere with both loyalty and independent
professional judgment. As a result, each client is entitled to know of the
existence and implications of the relationship between the lawyers before the
lawyer agrees to undertake the representation. Thus, a lawyer related to another
lawyer, e.g., as parent, child, sibling or spouse, ordinarily may not represent a
client in a matter where that lawyer is representing another party, unless each
client gives informed consent
a result, each client is entitled to know of the
existence and implications of the relationship between the lawyers before the
lawyer agrees to undertake the representation. Thus, a lawyer related to another
lawyer, e.g., as parent, child, sibling or spouse, ordinarily may not represent a
client in a matter where that lawyer is representing another party, unless each
client gives informed consent. The disqualiﬁcation arising from a close family
relationship is personal and ordinarily is not imputed to members of ﬁrms with
whom the lawyers are associated. See Rule 1.10.
[12] A lawyer is prohibited from engaging in sexual relationships with a
client unless the sexual relationship predates the formation of the client-lawyer
relationship. See Rule 1.8(j).
Interest of Person Paying for a Lawyer’s Service. [13] A lawyer may be paid
from a source other than the client, including a co-client, if the client is
informed of that fact and consents and the arrangement does not compromise
the lawyer’s duty of loyalty or independent judgment to the client. See Rule
1.8(f). If acceptance of the payment from any other source presents a signiﬁcant
risk that the lawyer’s representation of the client will be materially limited by
the lawyer’s own interest in accommodating the person paying the lawyer’s fee
or by the lawyer’s responsibilities to a payer who is also a co-client, then the
lawyer must comply with the requirements of paragraph (b) before accepting the
representation, including determining whether the conﬂict is consentable and,
if so, that the client has adequate information about the material risks of the
representation.
Prohibited Representations. [14] Ordinarily, clients may consent to representation notwithstanding a conﬂict. However, as indicated in paragraph (b), some
conﬂicts are nonconsentable, meaning that the lawyer involved cannot properly
ask for such agreement or provide representation on the basis of the client’s
consent
e client has adequate information about the material risks of the
representation.
Prohibited Representations. [14] Ordinarily, clients may consent to representation notwithstanding a conﬂict. However, as indicated in paragraph (b), some
conﬂicts are nonconsentable, meaning that the lawyer involved cannot properly
ask for such agreement or provide representation on the basis of the client’s
consent. When the lawyer is representing more than one client the question of
consentability must be resolved as to each client.
[15] Consentability is typically determined by considering whether the interests of the clients will be adequately protected if the clients are permitted to give
their informed decision to representation burdened by a conﬂict of interest.
Thus, under paragraph (b)(1), representation is prohibited if in the circumstances the lawyer cannot reasonably conclude that the lawyer will be able to
provide competent and diligent representation. See Rule 1.1 (competence) and
Rule 1.3 (diligence).
[16] Paragraph (b)(2) describes conﬂicts that are nonconsentable because the
representation is prohibited by applicable law. For example, in some states
substantive law provides that the same lawyer may not represent more than one
defendant in a capital case, even with the consent of the clients, and under
federal criminal statutes certain representations by a former government
lawyer are prohibited, despite the informed consent of the former client. In
addition, decisional law in some states limits the ability of a governmental
client, such as a municipality, to consent to a conﬂict of interest.
[17] Paragraph (b)(3) describes conﬂicts that are nonconsentable because of
the institutional interest in vigorous development of each client’s position when
the clients are aligned directly against each other in the same litigation or other
proceeding before a tribunal. Whether clients are aligned directly against each
other within the meaning of this paragraph requires examination of the context
of the proceeding
(3) describes conﬂicts that are nonconsentable because of
the institutional interest in vigorous development of each client’s position when
the clients are aligned directly against each other in the same litigation or other
proceeding before a tribunal. Whether clients are aligned directly against each
other within the meaning of this paragraph requires examination of the context
of the proceeding. Although this paragraph does not preclude a lawyer’s
multiple representation of adverse parties to a mediation (because mediation is
not a proceeding before a “tribunal” under Rule 1.0(n)), such representation
may be precluded by paragraph (b)(1).
Informed Consent. [18] Informed consent requires that each affected client be
aware of the relevant circumstances and of the material and reasonably
foreseeable ways that the conﬂict could have adverse effects on the interests of
that client. See Rule 1.0(f) (informed consent). The information required
depends on the nature of the conﬂict and the nature of the risks involved. When
representation of multiple clients in a single matter is undertaken, the information must include the implications of the common representation, including
possible effects on loyalty, conﬁdentiality and the attorney-client privilege and
the advantages and risks involved. See Comments [30] and [31] (effect of
common representation on conﬁdentiality).
[19] Under some circumstances it may be impossible to make the disclosure
necessary to obtain consent. For example, when the lawyer represents different
clients in related matters and one of the clients refuses to consent to the
disclosure necessary to permit the other client to make an informed decision, the
lawyer cannot properly ask the latter to consent. In some cases the alternative
to common representation can be that each party may have to obtain separate
representation with the possibility of incurring additional costs
represents different
clients in related matters and one of the clients refuses to consent to the
disclosure necessary to permit the other client to make an informed decision, the
lawyer cannot properly ask the latter to consent. In some cases the alternative
to common representation can be that each party may have to obtain separate
representation with the possibility of incurring additional costs. These costs,
along with the beneﬁts of securing separate representation, are factors that may
be considered by the affected client in determining whether common representation is in the client’s interests.
Consent Conﬁrmed in Writing. [20] Paragraph (b) requires the lawyer to
obtain the informed consent of the client, conﬁrmed in writing. Such a writing
may consist of a document executed by the client or one that the lawyer promptly
records and transmits to the client following an oral consent. See Rule 1.0(c).
See also Rule 1.0(o) (writing includes electronic transmission). If it is not
feasible to obtain or transmit the writing at the time the client gives informed
consent, then the lawyer must obtain or transmit it within a reasonable time
thereafter. See Rule 1.0(c). The requirement of a writing does not supplant the
need in most cases for the lawyer to talk with the client, to explain the risks and
advantages, if any, of representation burdened with a conﬂict of interest, as well
as reasonably available alternatives, and to afford the client a reasonable
opportunity to consider the risks and alternatives and to raise questions and
concerns. Rather, the writing is required in order to impress upon clients the
seriousness of the decision the client is being asked to make and to avoid
disputes or ambiguities that might later occur in the absence of a writing.
Similarly, although the Rule does not require that the writing be signed by the
client, obtaining the client’s signature is encouraged to further avoid disputes or
ambiguities.
Revoking Consent
riting is required in order to impress upon clients the
seriousness of the decision the client is being asked to make and to avoid
disputes or ambiguities that might later occur in the absence of a writing.
Similarly, although the Rule does not require that the writing be signed by the
client, obtaining the client’s signature is encouraged to further avoid disputes or
ambiguities.
Revoking Consent. [21] A client who has given consent to a conﬂict may
revoke the consent and, like any other client, may terminate the lawyer’s
representation at any time. Whether revoking consent to the client’s own
representation precludes the lawyer from continuing to represent other clients
depends on the circumstances, including the nature of the conﬂict, whether the
client revoked consent because of a material change in circumstances, the
reasonable expectations of the other client and whether material detriment to
the other clients or the lawyer would result.
Consent to Future Conﬂict. [22] Whether a lawyer may properly request a
client to waive conﬂicts that might arise in the future is subject to the test of
paragraph (b). The effectiveness of such waivers is generally determined by the
extent to which the client reasonably understands the material risks that the
waiver entails. The more comprehensive the explanation of the types of future
representations that might arise and the actual and reasonably foreseeable
adverse consequences of those representations, the greater the likelihood that
the client will have the requisite understanding. Thus, if the client agrees to
consent to a particular type of conﬂict with which the client is already familiar,
then the consent ordinarily will be effective with regard to that type of conﬂict.
If the consent is general and open-ended, then the consent ordinarily will be
ineffective, because it is not reasonably likely that the client will have understood the material risks involved
derstanding. Thus, if the client agrees to
consent to a particular type of conﬂict with which the client is already familiar,
then the consent ordinarily will be effective with regard to that type of conﬂict.
If the consent is general and open-ended, then the consent ordinarily will be
ineffective, because it is not reasonably likely that the client will have understood the material risks involved. On the other hand, if the client is an
experienced user of the legal services involved and is reasonably informed
regarding the risk that a conﬂict may arise, such consent is more likely to be
effective, particularly if, e.g., the client is independently represented by other
counsel in giving consent and the consent is limited to future conﬂicts unrelated
to the subject of the representation. In any case, advance consent cannot be
effective if the circumstances that materialize in the future are such as would
make the conﬂict nonconsentable under paragraph (b).
Conﬂicts in Litigation. [23] Paragraph (b)(3) prohibits representation of
opposing parties in the same litigation, regardless of the client’s consent. On the
other hand, simultaneous representation of parties whose interests in litigation
may conﬂict, such as coplaintiffs or codefendants, is governed by paragraph
(a)(2). A conﬂict may exist by reason of substantial discrepancy in the parties’
testimony, incompatibility in positions in relation to an opposing party or the
fact that there are substantially different possibilities of settlement of the claims
or liabilities in question. Such conﬂicts can arise in criminal cases as well as
civil. The potential for conﬂict of interest in representing multiple defendants in
a criminal case is so grave that ordinarily a lawyer should decline to represent
more than one codefendant. See Rule 44(c) of the Wyoming Rules of Criminal
Procedure and other applicable state law. On the other hand, common representation of persons having similar interests in civil litigation is proper if the
requirements of paragraph (b) are met
of interest in representing multiple defendants in
a criminal case is so grave that ordinarily a lawyer should decline to represent
more than one codefendant. See Rule 44(c) of the Wyoming Rules of Criminal
Procedure and other applicable state law. On the other hand, common representation of persons having similar interests in civil litigation is proper if the
requirements of paragraph (b) are met.
[24] Ordinarily, a lawyer may take inconsistent legal positions in different
tribunals at different times on behalf of different clients. The mere fact that
advocating a legal position on behalf of one client might create precedent
adverse to the interests of a client represented by the lawyer in an unrelated
matter does not create a conﬂict of interest. A conﬂict of interest exists, however,
if there is a signiﬁcant risk that a lawyer’s action on behalf of one client will
materially limit the lawyer’s effectiveness in representing another client in a
different case; for example, when a decision favoring one client will create a
precedent likely to seriously weaken the position taken on behalf of the other
client. Factors relevant in determining whether the clients need to be advised of
the risk include: where the cases are pending, whether the issue is substantive
or procedural, the temporal relationship between the matters, the signiﬁcance of
the issue to the immediate and long-term interests of the clients involved and
the clients’ reasonable expectations in retaining the lawyer. If there is signiﬁcant
risk of material limitation, then absent informed consent by the affected clients,
the lawyer must refuse one of the representations or withdraw from one or both
matters.
[25] When a lawyer represents or seeks to represent a class of plaintiffs or
defendants in a class-action lawsuit, unnamed members of the class are
ordinarily not considered to be clients of the lawyer for purposes of applying
paragraph (a)(1) of this Rule
, then absent informed consent by the affected clients,
the lawyer must refuse one of the representations or withdraw from one or both
matters.
[25] When a lawyer represents or seeks to represent a class of plaintiffs or
defendants in a class-action lawsuit, unnamed members of the class are
ordinarily not considered to be clients of the lawyer for purposes of applying
paragraph (a)(1) of this Rule. Thus, the lawyer does not typically need to get the
consent of such a person before representing a client suing the person in an
unrelated matter. Similarly, a lawyer seeking to represent an opponent in a
class action does not typically need the consent of an unnamed member of the
class whom the lawyer represents in an unrelated matter.
Nonlitigation Conﬂicts. [26] Conﬂicts of interest under paragraphs (a)(1)
and (a)(2) arise in contexts other than litigation. For a discussion of directly
adverse conﬂicts in transactional matters, see Comment [7]. Relevant factors in
determining whether there is signiﬁcant potential for material limitation
include the duration and intimacy of the lawyer’s relationship with the client or
clients involved, the functions being performed by the lawyer, the likelihood that
disagreements will arise and the likely prejudice to the client from the conﬂict.
The question is often one of proximity and degree. See Comment [8].
[27] For example, conﬂict questions may arise in estate planning and estate
administration. A lawyer may be called upon to prepare wills for several family
members, such as husband and wife, and, depending upon the circumstances,
a conﬂict of interest may be present. In estate administration the identity of the
client may be unclear under the law of a particular jurisdiction. Under one
view, the client is the ﬁduciary; under another view the client is the estate or
trust, including its beneﬁciaries. In order to comply with conﬂict of interest
rules, the lawyer should make clear the lawyer’s relationship to the parties
involved
nﬂict of interest may be present. In estate administration the identity of the
client may be unclear under the law of a particular jurisdiction. Under one
view, the client is the ﬁduciary; under another view the client is the estate or
trust, including its beneﬁciaries. In order to comply with conﬂict of interest
rules, the lawyer should make clear the lawyer’s relationship to the parties
involved.
[28] Whether a conﬂict is consentable depends on the circumstances. For
example, a lawyer may not represent multiple parties to a negotiation whose
interests are fundamentally antagonistic to each other, but common representation is permissible where the clients are generally aligned in interest even
though there is some difference in interest among them. Thus, a lawyer may seek
to establish or adjust a relationship between clients on an amicable and
mutually advantageous basis; for example, in helping to organize a business in
which two or more clients are entrepreneurs, working out the ﬁnancial
reorganization of an enterprise in which two or more clients have an interest or
arranging a property distribution in settlement of an estate. The lawyer seeks to
resolve potentially adverse interests by developing the parties’ mutual interests.
Otherwise, each party might have to obtain separate representation, with the
possibility of incurring additional cost, complication or even litigation. Given
these and other relevant factors, the clients may prefer that the lawyer act for all
of them.
Special Considerations in Common Representation. See Comment [28].
[29] In considering whether to represent multiple clients in the same matter,
a lawyer should be mindful that if the common representation fails because the
potentially adverse interests cannot be reconciled, the result can be additional
cost, embarrassment and recrimination. Ordinarily, the lawyer will be forced to
withdraw from representing all of the clients if the common representation fails
.
[29] In considering whether to represent multiple clients in the same matter,
a lawyer should be mindful that if the common representation fails because the
potentially adverse interests cannot be reconciled, the result can be additional
cost, embarrassment and recrimination. Ordinarily, the lawyer will be forced to
withdraw from representing all of the clients if the common representation fails.
In some situations, the risk of failure is so great that multiple representation is
plainly impossible. For example, a lawyer cannot undertake common representation of clients where contentious litigation or negotiations between them are
imminent or contemplated. Moreover, because the lawyer is required to be
impartial between commonly represented clients, representation of multiple
clients is improper when it is unlikely that impartiality can be maintained.
Generally, if the relationship between the parties has already assumed antagonism, the possibility that the clients’ interests can be adequately served by
common representation is not very good. Other relevant factors are whether the
lawyer subsequently will represent both parties on a continuing basis and
whether the situation involves creating or terminating a relationship between
the parties. If the common representation involves a criminal matter, see Rule
44(c) of the Wyoming Rules of Criminal Procedure.
[30] A particularly important factor in determining the appropriateness of
common representation is the effect on client-lawyer conﬁdentiality and the
attorney-client privilege. With regard to the attorney-client privilege, the prevailing rule is that, as between commonly represented clients, the privilege does
not attach. Hence, it must be assumed that if litigation eventuates between the
clients, the privilege will not protect any such communications, and the clients
should be so advised
on is the effect on client-lawyer conﬁdentiality and the
attorney-client privilege. With regard to the attorney-client privilege, the prevailing rule is that, as between commonly represented clients, the privilege does
not attach. Hence, it must be assumed that if litigation eventuates between the
clients, the privilege will not protect any such communications, and the clients
should be so advised.
[31] As to the duty of conﬁdentiality, continued common representation will
almost certainly be inadequate if one client asks the lawyer not to disclose to the
other client information relevant to the common representation. This is so
because the lawyer has an equal duty of loyalty to each client, and each client
has the right to be informed of anything bearing on the representation that
might affect that client’s interests and the right to expect that the lawyer will use
that information to that client’s beneﬁt. See Rule 1.4. The lawyer should, at the
outset of the common representation and as part of the process of obtaining each
client’s informed consent, advise each client that information will be shared and
that the lawyer will have to withdraw if one client decides that some matter
material to the representation should be kept from the other. In limited
circumstances, it may be appropriate for the lawyer to proceed with the
representation when the clients have agreed, after being properly informed, that
the lawyer will keep certain information conﬁdential. For example, the lawyer
may reasonably conclude that failure to disclose one client’s trade secrets to
another client will not adversely affect representation involving a joint venture
between the clients and agree to keep that information conﬁdential with the
informed consent of both clients
nts have agreed, after being properly informed, that
the lawyer will keep certain information conﬁdential. For example, the lawyer
may reasonably conclude that failure to disclose one client’s trade secrets to
another client will not adversely affect representation involving a joint venture
between the clients and agree to keep that information conﬁdential with the
informed consent of both clients.
[32] When seeking to establish or adjust a relationship between clients, the
lawyer should make clear that the lawyer’s role is not that of partisanship
normally expected in other circumstances and, thus, that the clients may be
required to assume greater responsibility for decisions than when each client is
separately represented. Any limitations on the scope of the representation made
necessary as a result of the common representation should be fully explained to
the clients in writing at the outset of the representation. See Rule 1.2(c).
[33] Subject to the above limitations, each client in the common representation has the right to loyal and diligent representation and the protection of Rule
1.9 concerning the obligations to a former client. The client also has the right to
discharge the lawyer as stated in Rule 1.16.
Organizational Clients. [34] A lawyer who represents a corporation or other
organization does not, by virtue of that representation, necessarily represent any
constituent or affiliated organization, such as a parent or subsidiary. See Rule
1.13(a). Thus, the lawyer for an organization is not barred from accepting
representation adverse to an affiliate in an unrelated matter, unless the
circumstances are such that the affiliate should also be considered a client of the
lawyer, there is an understanding between the lawyer and the organizational
client that the lawyer will avoid representation adverse to the client’s affiliates,
or the lawyer’s obligations to either the organizational client or the new client
are likely to limit materially the lawyer’s representation of the other client
mstances are such that the affiliate should also be considered a client of the
lawyer, there is an understanding between the lawyer and the organizational
client that the lawyer will avoid representation adverse to the client’s affiliates,
or the lawyer’s obligations to either the organizational client or the new client
are likely to limit materially the lawyer’s representation of the other client.
[35] A lawyer for a corporation or other organization who is also a member
of its board of directors should determine whether the responsibilities of the two
roles may conﬂict. The lawyer may be called on to advise the corporation in
matters involving actions of the directors. Consideration should be given to the
frequency with which such situations may arise, the potential intensity of the
conﬂict, the effect of the lawyer’s resignation from the board and the possibility
of the corporation’s obtaining legal advice from another lawyer in such
situations. If there is material risk that the dual role will compromise the
lawyer’s independence of professional judgment, the lawyer should not serve as
a director or should cease to act as the corporation’s lawyer when conﬂicts of
interest arise. The lawyer should advise the other members of the board that in
some circumstances matters discussed at board meetings while the lawyer is
present in the capacity of director might not be protected by the attorney-client
privilege and that conﬂict of interest considerations might require the lawyer’s
recusal as a director or might require the lawyer and the lawyer’s ﬁrm to decline
representation of the corporation in a matter.
Deﬁnitional Cross-References
“Conﬁrmed in writing” See Rule 1.0(c)
“Informed consent” See Rule 1.0(f)
“Reasonably believes” See Rule 1.0(j)
“Tribunal” See Rule 1.0(n)

## Nearby sections

- [Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 1.0 Rule 1.0. Terminology](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_WY_RULEPROFCONDATTOLAW_R1_0.md)
- [Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1 Rule 1.1. Competence](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_WY_RULEPROFCONDATTOLAW_R1_1.md)
- [Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 1.2 Rule 1.2. Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority Be- tween Client and Lawyer](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_WY_RULEPROFCONDATTOLAW_R1_2.md)
- [Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3 Rule 1.3. Diligence](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_WY_RULEPROFCONDATTOLAW_R1_3.md)
- [Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 1.4 Rule 1.4. Communication](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_WY_RULEPROFCONDATTOLAW_R1_4.md)
- [Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 1.5 Rule 1.5. Fees](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_WY_RULEPROFCONDATTOLAW_R1_5.md)
- [Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 1.6 Rule 1.6. Conﬁdentiality of Information](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_WY_RULEPROFCONDATTOLAW_R1_6.md)
- [Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 1.7 Rule 1.7. Conﬂict of Interest: Current Clients](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_WY_RULEPROFCONDATTOLAW_R1_7.md)
- [Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 1.8 Rule 1.8. Conﬂict of Interest: Current Clients: Speciﬁc Prohibited Transactions](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_WY_RULEPROFCONDATTOLAW_R1_8.md)
- [Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 1.9 Rule 1.9. Duties to Former Clients](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_WY_RULEPROFCONDATTOLAW_R1_9.md)
- [Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 1.10 Rule 1.10. Imputation of Conﬂicts of Interest: General Rule](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_WY_RULEPROFCONDATTOLAW_R1_10.md)
- [Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 1.11 Rule 1.11. Special Conﬂicts of Interest for Former and Current Gov- ernment Officers and Employees](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_WY_RULEPROFCONDATTOLAW_R1_11.md)
- [Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 1.12 Rule 1.12. Former Judge, Arbitrator, Mediator, or Other Third-Party Neutral](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_WY_RULEPROFCONDATTOLAW_R1_12.md)
- [Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 1.13 Rule 1.13. Organization as Client](https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_WY_RULEPROFCONDATTOLAW_R1_13.md)

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/statutes/SRULES_WY_RULEPROFCONDATTOLAW_R1_7. Check the current official text before relying on it. Not legal advice.