(a) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client will be directly adverse to another client, unless:
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not adversely affect the relationship with the other client; and
(2) each client consents after consultation.
(b) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client or to a third person, or by the lawyer's own interests, unless:
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected; and
(2) the client consents after consultation. When representation of multiple clients in a single matter is undertaken, the consultation shall include explanation of the implications of the common representation and the advantages and risks involved.
Adopted June 9, 1997, effective January 1, 1998. Amended December 9, 1998, effective January 1, 1999. Amended June 30, 1999, effective September 1, 1999.
Loyalty to a Client
 Loyalty is an essential element in the lawyer's relationship to a client. An impermissible conflict of interest may exist before representation is undertaken, in which event the representation should be declined. The 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 parties and issues involved and to determine whether there are actual or potential conflicts of interest.
 If such a conflict arises after representation has been undertaken, the lawyer should withdraw from the representation. See Rule 1.16. Where more than one client is involved and the lawyer withdraws because a conflict arises after representation, whether the lawyer may continue to represent any of the clients is determined by Rule 1.9. As to whether a client-lawyer relationship exists or, having once been established, is continuing, see Comment to Rule 1.3 and Scope.
 As a general proposition, loyalty to a client prohibits undertaking representation directly adverse to that client without that client's consent. Paragraph (a) expresses that general rule. Thus, a lawyer ordinarily may not act as advocate against a person the lawyer represents in some other matter, even if it is wholly unrelated. On the other hand, simultaneous representation in unrelated matters of clients whose interests are only generally adverse, such as competing economic enterprises, does not require consent of the respective clients. Paragraph (a) applies only when the representation of one client would be directly adverse to the other.
 Loyalty to a client is also impaired when a lawyer cannot consider, recommend or carry out an appropriate course of action for the client because of the lawyer's other responsibilities or interests. The conflict in effect forecloses alternatives that would otherwise be available to the client. Paragraph (b) addresses such situations. A possible conflict does not itself preclude the representation. The critical questions are the likelihood that a conflict 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. Consideration should be given to whether the client wishes to accommodate the other interest involved.
Consultation and Consent
 A client may consent to representation notwithstanding a conflict. However, as indicated in paragraph (a)(1) with respect to representation directly adverse to a client, and paragraph (b)(1) with respect to material limitations on representation of a client, when a disinterested lawyer would conclude that the client should not agree to the representation under the circumstances, the lawyer involved cannot properly ask for such agreement or provide representation on the basis of the client's consent. When more than one client is involved, the question of conflict must be resolved as to each client. Moreover, there may be circumstances where it is 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.
 The lawyer's own interests should not be permitted to have an adverse effect on representation of a client. For example, a lawyer's need for income should not lead the lawyer to undertake matters that cannot be handled competently and at a reasonable fee. See Rules 1.1 and 1.5. 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. 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 interest. Likewise, a lawyer should not accept referrals from a referral source, including law enforcement or court personnel, if the lawyer's desire to continue to receive referrals from that source or the lawyer's relationship to that source would discourage or would reasonably be viewed as discouraging the lawyer from representing the client zealously.
Conflicts in Litigation
 Paragraph (a) prohibits representation of opposing parties in litigation. Simultaneous representation of parties whose interests in litigation may conflict, such as coplaintiffs or codefendants, is governed by paragraph (b). An impermissible 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. In criminal cases, the potential for conflict of interest in representing multiple defendants is so grave that ordinarily a lawyer should decline to act for more than one codefendant, or more than one person under investigation by law enforcement authorities for the same transaction or series of transactions, including any investigation by a grand jury. On the other hand, common representation of persons having similar interests is proper if the lawyer reasonably believes the risk of adverse effect is minimal and all persons have given their informed consent to the multiple representation, as required by paragraph (b).
 Ordinarily, a lawyer may not act as advocate against a client the lawyer represents in some other matter, even if the other matter is wholly unrelated. However, there are circumstances in which a lawyer may act as advocate against a client. For example, a lawyer representing an enterprise with diverse operations may accept employment as an advocate against the enterprise in an unrelated matter if doing so will not adversely affect the lawyer's relationship with the enterprise or conduct of the suit and if both clients consent upon consultation. A lawyer representing the parent or a subsidiary of a corporation is not automatically disqualified from simultaneously taking an adverse position to a different affiliate of the represented party, even without consent. There may be situations where such concurrent representation will be possible because the effect of the adverse representation is insignificant with respect to the other affiliate or the parent and the management of the lawsuit is handled at completely different levels of the enterprise. But in many, perhaps most, cases, such concurrent representation will not be possible without consent of the parties.
[8A] The situation with respect to government lawyers is special, and public policy considerations may permit representation of conflicting interests in some circumstances where representation would be forbidden to a private lawyer.
 A lawyer may ordinarily represent parties having antagonistic positions on a legal question that has arisen in different matters. However, the antagonism may relate to an issue that is so crucial to the resolution of a matter as to require that the clients be advised of the conflict and their consent obtained. On rare occasions, such as the argument of both sides of a legal question before the same court at the same time, the conflict may be so severe that a lawyer could not continue the representation even with client consent.
Interest of Person Paying for a Lawyer's Service
 A lawyer may be paid from a source other than the client, if the client is informed of that fact and consents and the arrangement does not compromise the lawyer's duty of loyalty to the client. See Rule 1.8(f)
. For example, when an insurer and its insured have conflicting interests in a matter arising from a liability insurance agreement, and the insurer is required to provide special counsel for the insured, the arrangement should assure the special counsel's professional independence. So also, when a corporation and its directors or employees are involved in a controversy in which they have conflicting interests, the corporation may provide funds for separate legal representation of the directors or employees, if the clients consent after consultation and the arrangement ensures the lawyer's professional independence.
Other Conflict Situations
 Conflicts of interest in contexts other than litigation sometimes may be difficult to assess. Relevant factors in determining whether there is potential for adverse effect 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 actual conflict will arise and the likely prejudice to the client from the conflict if it does arise. The question is often one of proximity and degree.
 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 of interest among them. Thus, a lawyer may seek to establish or to 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 conflicting 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.
[12A] In considering whether to represent clients jointly, a lawyer should be mindful that if the joint representation fails because the potentially conflicting interests cannot be reconciled, the result can be additional cost, embarrassment, and recrimination. In some situations the risk of failure is so great that joint representation is plainly impossible. For example, a lawyer cannot undertake common representation of clients between whom contentious litigation is imminent or who contemplate contentious negotiations. A lawyer who has represented one of the clients for a long period and in a variety of matters might have difficulty being impartial between that client and one to whom the lawyer has only recently been introduced. More generally, if the relationship between the parties has already assumed definite antagonism, the possibility that the clients' interests can be adjusted by joint 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 a relationship between the parties or terminating one.
Confidentiality and Privilege
[12B] A particularly important factor in determining the appropriateness of joint representation is the effect on lawyer-client confidentiality and the attorney-client privilege. With regard to the evidentiary 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 client should be so advised.
[12C] As to the duty of confidentiality, while each client may assert that the lawyer keep something in confidence between the lawyer and the client, which is not to be disclosed to the other client, each client should be advised at the outset of the joint representation that making such a request will, in all likelihood, make it impossible for the lawyer to continue the joint representation. This is so because the lawyer has an equal duty of loyalty to each client. Each client has a right to expect that the lawyer will tell the client anything bearing on the representation that might affect that client's interests and that the lawyer will use that information to that client's benefit. But the lawyer cannot do this if the other client has sworn the lawyer to secrecy about any such matter. Thus, for the lawyer to proceed would be in derogation of the trust of the other client. To avoid this situation, at the outset of the joint representation the lawyer should advise both (or all) clients that the joint representation will work only if they agree to deal openly and honestly with one another on all matters relating to the representation, and that the lawyer will have to withdraw, if one requests that some matter material to the representation be kept from the other. The lawyer should advise the clients to consider carefully whether they are willing to share information openly with one another because above all else that is what it means to have one lawyer instead of separate representation for each.
[12D] In limited circumstances, it may be appropriate for a lawyer to ask both (or all) clients, if they want to agree that the lawyer will keep certain information confidential, i.e., from the other client. For example, an estate lawyer might want to ask joint clients if they each want to agree that in the eventuality that one becomes mentally disabled the lawyer be allowed to proceed with the joint representation, appropriately altering the estate plan, without the other's knowledge. Of course, should that eventuality come to pass, the lawyer should consult Rule 1.14 before proceeding. However, aside from such limited circumstances, the lawyer representing joint clients should emphasize that what the clients give up in terms of confidentiality is twofold: a later right to claim the attorney-client privilege in disputes between them; and the right during the representation to keep secrets from one another that bear on the representation.
[12E] When representing clients jointly, the lawyer is required to consult with them on the implications of doing so, and proceed only upon consent based on such a consultation. The consultation should make clear that the lawyer's role is not that of partisanship normally expected in other circumstances. When the lawyer is representing clients jointly, the clients ordinarily must assume greater responsibility for decisions than when each client is independently represented.
[12F] Subject to the above limitations, each client in the joint representation has the right to loyal and diligent representation and the protection of Rule 1.9 concerning obligations to a former client. The client also has the right to discharge the lawyer as stated in Rule 1.16.
 Conflict questions may also 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 arise. In estate administration the lawyer should make clear the relationship to the parties involved.
 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.
[14A] A lawyer who undertakes to represent a class should make an initial determination whether subclasses within the class should have separate representation because their interests differ in material respects from other segments of the class. Moreover, the lawyer who initially determines that subclasses are not necessary should revisit that determination as the litigation or settlement discussions proceed because as discovery or settlement talks proceed the interests of subgroups within the class may begin to diverge significantly. The class lawyer must be constantly alert to such divergences and to whether the interests of a subgroup of the class are being sacrificed or undersold in the interests of the whole. The lawyer has the responsibility to request that separate representation be provided to protect the interests of subgroups within the class. In general, the lawyer for a class should not simultaneously represent individuals, not within the class, or other classes, in actions against the defendant being sued by the class. Such simultaneous representation invites defendants to propose global settlements that require the class lawyer to trade off the interest of the class against the interests of other groups or individuals. Given the difficulty of obtaining class consent and the difficulty for the class action court of monitoring the details of the other settlements, such simultaneous representation should ordinarily be avoided. In some limited circumstances, it may be reasonable for class counsel to represent simultaneously the class and another party or parties against a common party if the other matter is not substantially related to the class representation and there is an objective basis for believing that the lawyer's representation will not be materially affected at any stage of either matter. For example, a lawyer might reasonably proceed if the common defendant were the government and the government's decision making in the class action was entrusted to a unit of the government highly unlikely to be affected by the decision maker for the government in the other matter.
Conflict Charged by an Opposing Party
 Resolving questions of conflict of interest is primarily the responsibility of the lawyer undertaking the representation. In litigation, a court may raise the question when there is reason to infer that the lawyer has neglected the responsibility. In a criminal case, inquiry by the court is generally required when a lawyer represents multiple defendants. Where the conflict is such as clearly to call in question the fair or efficient administration of justice, opposing counsel may properly raise the question. Such an objection should be viewed with caution, however, for it can be misused as a technique of harassment. See Scope.
Corresponding ABA Model Rule. Identical to Model Rule 1.7 .
Corresponding Former Massachusetts Rule. DR 5-101 (A), 5-105 (A) and (C), 5-107 (B).
Cross-reference: See definition of "consultation" in Rule 9.1 (c) .