"Directly Adverse" Means Directly Adverse: How Courts Have Misread Rule 1.7(A)(1) and Why It Matters
Document Type
Article
Publication Title
Denver Law Review
Abstract
The Model Rules do not define “directly adverse.” These words limit a lawyer’s freedom to accept clients and a client’s ability to hire counsel of choice—this prohibition derives from the lawyer’s duty of loyalty. When, then, is a matter directly adverse to a nonparty client simply because the outcome could harm its interests? The answer to that question, the subject of this Article, is where the boundaries of Rule 1.7(a)(1) have been blurred, leaving the courts and the bar without adequate guidance. By confusing Rule 1.9(a)’s protection of a former client’s “interests” with Rule 1.7(a)(1)’s prohibition of direct adversity to a current client, courts have rewritten and expanded Rule 1.7(a)(1). This Article examines the current rules, discusses how they have been erroneously applied, and offers guidelines for a proper interpretation of directly adverse.
First Page
59
Volume
98
Publication Date
2020
Recommended Citation
Gillers, Stephen, ""Directly Adverse" Means Directly Adverse: How Courts Have Misread Rule 1.7(A)(1) and Why It Matters" (2020). Faculty Articles. 472.
https://gretchen.law.nyu.edu/fac-articles/472
