Solicitors: conflict of interest?

[Cider Andy]

My partner is a longstanding client of a small firm of solicitors with a number of offices in the area. She is currently being represented by a paralegal who she has instructed in four separate matters, all of them involving property conveyancing. The paralegal reports to one of the partners of the firm in a different office, that partner also being responsible for the office in which the paralegal works. But she (my partner) is also the claimant in a litigation case and the defendant has instructed the same firm of solicitors to defend him. He is being represented by the same partner the paralegal reports to.

The paralegal is of the opinion this constitutes a conflict of interest whereas the partner declares there is no conflict, presumably because it involves different areas of law.

Does anyone here from this profession have an opinion on this? Even better, is there a definitive answer?

[Jeremy-75qq8]

As a non expert I would say there is a clear conflict.

He will have access should he choose to the case files etc of your wife

Any lawyer I have dealt with first conducts a conflict check before they can accept your instruction.

I had one where I could not use them as the ex wife of the person my wife had a fling with was using them as divorce lawyers.

[Roger Irrelevant]

Can I just check - is your partner being represented in the litigation by the same firm as well? I presume not as that would be a very obvious conflict and by the sounds of things it's not a big enough firm for them to operate effective 'Chinese walls'. If your partner hasn't engaged the same firm in litigation then there still could be a conflict, but if there is it seems to me that it's one that's in your partner's favour if anything. Her opponent in the litigation is being represented by a lawyer who also has dealings with your partner as an existing client on multiple matters. That should worry the opponent a lot more than your partner IMO.

[Cider Andy]

Roger Irrelevant said:

Can I just check - is your partner being represented in the litigation by the same firm as well? I presume not as that would be a very obvious conflict and by the sounds of things it's not a big enough firm for them to operate effective 'Chinese walls'. If your partner hasn't engaged the same firm in litigation then there still could be a conflict, but if there is it seems to me that it's one that's in your partner's favour if anything. Her opponent in the litigation is being represented by a lawyer who also has dealings with your partner as an existing client on multiple matters. That should worry the opponent a lot more than your partner IMO.

No, they're not representing her in the litigation matter.

[hidetheelephants]

Is the litigation anything to do with property/conveyancing? If not then while it's a bit questionable I can't see how it could cause a meaningful problem.

[carinaman]

KISS = Keep It Simple Stupid. If one of them uses another firm of solicitors there would less chance of a potential conflict of interest.

All though it's not criminal I wonder if the 1924 Sussex Justices car insurance case idea is applicable in that the right thing must also appear to be done. 'Not only must justice be done, but it should also seen to be done'. It's about an obvious conflict of interest and isn't difficult to understand.

[Cider Andy]

hidetheelephants said:

Is the litigation anything to do with property/conveyancing? If not then while it's a bit questionable I can't see how it could cause a meaningful problem.

No, completely separate.

[Cider Andy]

carinaman said:

KISS = Keep It Simple Stupid. If one of them uses another firm of solicitors there would less chance of a potential conflict of interest.....

I agree. Whilst the defendant chose a solicitor, rightfully having no idea the claimant was already a client, I would have thought the partner dealing with his case should have noticed the claimant was already a client, albeit it in a different area of law.

The partner at the solicitors, having previously stated my partner is not a client, now admits she is but that there is no conflict of interest.

[Cider Andy]

Jeremy-75qq8 said:

...Any lawyer I have dealt with first conducts a conflict check before they can accept your instruction....

This was my feeling: that had the partner at the solicitors done a simple check she would have found she had taken on a case against one of her own clients, whether or not the matters they have taken instruction on are related. It just seemed to me to be bad practice.

[quinny100]

The Solicitors Regulation Authority said:

A conflict of interest means a situation where your separate duties to act in the best interests of two or more clients in the same or a related matter conflict.

If the matters are completely unrelated - this would not constitute a conflict of interest.

https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/guidance/conflic...

Assuming these are ordinary conveyancing transactions on the basis a paralegal is dealing with them, I can’t think of any particular useful information that a solicitor would have that would be helpful in them defending a claim for another client. It might give them some idea of your wealth in general terms I suppose, but that’s probably more relevant if you were acting for the claimant (eg. advising don’t sue them, I know they’re skint because I’ve just sold their house for them because they couldn’t afford the mortgage payments).

[Collectingbrass]

Cider Andy said:

carinaman said:

KISS = Keep It Simple Stupid. If one of them uses another firm of solicitors there would less chance of a potential conflict of interest.....

I agree. Whilst the defendant chose a solicitor, rightfully having no idea the claimant was already a client, I would have thought the partner dealing with his case should have noticed the claimant was already a client, albeit it in a different area of law.

The partner at the solicitors, having previously stated my partner is not a client, now admits she is but that there is no conflict of interest.

That smacks of the partner at the solicitors thinks there is a conflict but doesn't want to loose a client to me.

[Cider Andy]

quinny100 said:

If the matters are completely unrelated - this would not constitute a conflict of interest.

https://www.sra.org.uk/solicitors/guidance/conflic...

Assuming these are ordinary conveyancing transactions on the basis a paralegal is dealing with them, I can’t think of any particular useful information that a solicitor would have that would be helpful in them defending a claim for another client. It might give them some idea of your wealth in general terms I suppose, but that’s probably more relevant if you were acting for the claimant (eg. advising don’t sue them, I know they’re skint because I’ve just sold their house for them because they couldn’t afford the mortgage payments).

Thanks for that link (which I'd subsequently found myself). Your view is pretty much what mine is, even down to the 'skint' scenario.

[Cider Andy]

Collectingbrass said:

That smacks of the partner at the solicitors thinks there is a conflict but doesn't want to loose a client to me.

Yes, this. Wilst not strictly against the code of conduct it's not reall good practice.

[Austin_Metro]

Cider Andy said:

Yes, this. Wilst not strictly against the code of conduct it's not reall good practice.

The solicitor partner might say, had you wanted them to act in the litigation matter, your partner could have appointed them. Your partner went elsewhere.

This is what is know as a commercial conflict. It’s not a legal conflict, where they cannot act. They are valuing the instructions from the defendant above your partners ongoing relationship. I don’t see what your partner has to be upset about.