Certified Legal Professional (CLP) Practice Exam

Is the attorney subject to discipline for accepting representation of an employee against the manufacturing company without prior discussion?

1. No, because the attorney reasonably believed he could represent both parties competently

2. No, because there were no common issues of law or fact in the respective lawsuits

3. Yes, because the attorney's representation of the employee was directly adverse to the manufacturing company

4. Yes, because informed consent from the manufacturing company was required

The correct answer is: Yes, because informed consent from the manufacturing company was required

The correct answer emphasizes the importance of informed consent in situations where an attorney's representation might lead to a conflict of interest. In the scenario presented, the attorney accepted representation of an employee against the manufacturing company without first discussing the potential conflict with the manufacturing company. This lack of prior communication meant that the manufacturing company was not given the opportunity to provide consent to the representation. In the legal profession, attorneys must navigate ethical considerations regarding conflicts of interest. When an attorney represents clients with potentially opposing interests, it is crucial to ensure that all parties are informed and agree to the arrangement. Obtaining informed consent protects the attorney's ability to serve each client competently and without bias, and it also respects the rights of the clients involved. By not acquiring informed consent from the manufacturing company, the attorney risks violating ethical guidelines, which can lead to disciplinary action. Hence, the requirement for informed consent serves as a safeguard for maintaining the integrity of the attorney-client relationship and upholding ethical standards within the profession.