The facts presented to the Ethics Committee were as follows. Five years ago, Wife approached Lawyer A to discuss retaining Lawyer A to bring a divorce action against her Husband. Wife and Lawyer A met for 45 minutes. Wife declined to retain Lawyer A, and took no further action to divorce Husband. Lawyer B and Lawyer A have been law partners for many years. Recently, Husband asked Lawyer B to represent him in divorcing Wife. Lawyer A did not keep any documentation from his meeting with Wife and stated he did not recall any information shared by Wife during the consultation. Wife refused to consent to Lawyer B’s representation of Husband in divorce or waive any conflict of interest arising from her consultation with Lawyer A.
The Ethics Committee ultimately concluded that Lawyer A had a duty of confidentiality to Wife, which limited his ability to represent Husband in divorce. Accordingly, Lawyer A was prohibited from representing Husband under Rule 1.06(b)(2). And Lawyer A’s disqualifying conflict was imputed to Lawyer B and the other attorneys in the firm.
请问如果做为原告律师事务所被告知“interest conflicts"， 这是说，他们有代理另外一个原告， 还是代表我要告的一方？ 谢谢
离婚的人玩绝的，打离婚以前到所有本地离婚律师都去咨询一遍，故意告知隐私，然后挑一家打离婚，另一方都找不到近处的律师。
谢谢回复！ 我是告在德州房地产管理公司。他们不仅拖两个月的房租， 而且空置房屋有六个月。 写信要么不回， 要么推脱。 我找人去看那几个空置房， 结果是房屋根本不能住人。 有一个房居然被破门。 邻居讲有两三个月有teenagers 出入。
请问柠檬或其他好心人可否介绍房地产律师 和房屋管理公司？ 谢谢先。
这个interest conflicts什么时候会expired哪？
一个律师的过去客户，现在客户，和咨询过的将来客户都可能和律师分享保密信息，只要律师知道这个客户的需要保密的信息（confidential information），这个律师和整个律师楼就不能代表你。
如果某人或者公司只是与该律师事务所咨询一下，不算真正意义上的client吧？该律师事务所因此就拒绝提供法律服务给相关连客户吗？
https://www.tlie.org/confidentiality-obligations-to-prospective-clients-under-texas-ethics-opinion-691/
The facts presented to the Ethics Committee were as follows. Five years ago, Wife approached Lawyer A to discuss retaining Lawyer A to bring a divorce action against her Husband. Wife and Lawyer A met for 45 minutes. Wife declined to retain Lawyer A, and took no further action to divorce Husband. Lawyer B and Lawyer A have been law partners for many years. Recently, Husband asked Lawyer B to represent him in divorcing Wife. Lawyer A did not keep any documentation from his meeting with Wife and stated he did not recall any information shared by Wife during the consultation. Wife refused to consent to Lawyer B’s representation of Husband in divorce or waive any conflict of interest arising from her consultation with Lawyer A.
The Ethics Committee ultimately concluded that Lawyer A had a duty of confidentiality to Wife, which limited his ability to represent Husband in divorce. Accordingly, Lawyer A was prohibited from representing Husband under Rule 1.06(b)(2). And Lawyer A’s disqualifying conflict was imputed to Lawyer B and the other attorneys in the firm.