Can Your Ex- Use a Divorce Lawyer Who Represented You on a Prior Legal Matter

My question involves a marriage in the state of: Missouri

So a wife and a husband have an attorney to help them through the years with traffic tickets and business dealings - the wife is now divorcing the husband, and the husband is using the attorney that has previously represented the wife in court. The attorney for the husband is not currently representing the wife for any matters, but has intimate knowledge of the wife's personal and financial life from prior representation. Is this a conflict of interest on the husbands attorneys part, and would it be grounds to have him removed from the divorce case?

So you think that representing the husband and wife in traffic tickets and business dealings gives the attorney some step up on representing the husband in a divorce. It's no conflict of interest.

How about you just get on with the merits of the divorce and stop trying wrangle.

A traffic ticket is not the sort of case that would normally have a substantial relationship to a later divorce; business dealings may or may not have such a relationship, depending on the facts. If the wife wants to try to disqualify her husband's attorney based upon her past dealings with that lawyer, she should discuss the prior representation and how it relates to the divorce with her own divorce lawyer.

Quote:

---

Quoting Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 4-1.9: Duties to Former Clients

---

(a) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.

(b) A lawyer shall not knowingly represent a person in the same or a substantially related matter in which a firm with which the lawyer formerly was associated had previously represented a client:

(1) whose interests are materially adverse to that person; and

(2) about whom the lawyer had acquired information protected by Rules 4-1.6 and 4-1.9(c) that is material to the matter; unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.

(c) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter or whose present or former firm has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter:

(1) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client or when the information has become generally known; or

(2) reveal information relating to the representation except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client.

---

Her husband is corrupt beyond words, and he is using every legal and illegal tactic possible to try and make the wife leave the country back to her home country. He constantly has people intimidate her because she has an order of protection against him. The lawyer hangs out at his business everyday and they are buddy buddy. The lawyer has deep ties in the community and is using tactics that are beyond immoral. This man (the husband) has literally millions at his disposal to wreak havoc on his soon to be ex wife, and she has never worked a day in her life and cannot even write in English.

Quote:

---

Quoting missouriguy

---

Her husband is corrupt beyond words, and he is using every legal and illegal tactic possible to try and make the wife leave the country back to her home country. He constantly has people intimidate her because she has an order of protection against him. The lawyer hangs out at his business everyday and they are buddy buddy. The lawyer has deep ties in the community and is using tactics that are beyond immoral. This man (the husband) has literally millions at his disposal to wreak havoc on his soon to be ex wife, and she has never worked a day in her life and cannot even write in English.

---

Nothing in this particular post indicates that there is a conflict of interest happening here.

Quote:

---

Quoting eerelations

---

Nothing in this particular post indicates that there is a conflict of interest happening here.

---

I am not entirely sure that I agree, but what I AM sure about is that she absolutely needs an attorney, and her attorney will decide whether or not to challenge his attorney.

Quote:

---

Quoting llworking

---

I am not entirely sure that I agree....

---

I think it would be more accurate to say that nothing in the post sheds any light upon whether or not there is a conflict of interest that would affect the attorney's representation of the husband. There may be a conflict, there may not be a conflict, but that post takes us no closer to determining whether or not there is a conflict.

Quote:

---

Quoting Mr. Knowitall

---

I think it would be more accurate to say that nothing in the post sheds any light upon whether or not there is a conflict of interest that would affect the attorney's representation of the husband. There may be a conflict, there may not be a conflict, but that post takes us no closer to determining whether or not there is a conflict.

---

Absolutely. It's clear that she needs an attorney of her own and her own attorney would be better able to judge whether or not a conflict might exist. I will say though, that I think its reasonable to question, in a scenario like this one, as to whether or not a conflict might exist.

She does have an attorney. It is difficult for her to communicate her point of view because of the language barriers. I am just acting as an advocate on her part. Every time I have talked to her attorney, he just keeps saying things will get more expensive (for translators, guardian ad litem, temporary custody motions, etc). She does not have the funds to fight this if he drags it out, but her potential windfall would trump any hourly attorney fees if the marital estate is split up evenly.