90-2.

CourtKansas
Kansas Ethics Opinion 1990. 90-2. 1990KBA Legal Ethics Opinion No. 90-2FACTS You requested an advisory opinion regarding your 1978 representation of Mr. D. P. (husband). You advise us that you represented Mr. D.P. (husband) in a divorce action against his wife, Mrs. D. P. Apparently, You told the parties that you could only represent one of them in the divorce. It was concluded that you would in fact represent the husband. The wife was awarded custody of the child. In accordance with the parties agreement, child support was established. The husband has since moved out of state, and is delinquent in child support. You have had no contact with regards to representing her on a motion to increase child support beyond the original support. QUESTIONS Is there a conflict of interest by filing a motion for the wife to increase child support for a reasonable figure, but probably less than the guidelines? Would handling the case involve an appearance of impropriety? ANALYSIS You indicate your belief that there is nothing in the file that would be beneficial to Mrs. D. P. to the request of increased child support at this time. You acknowledge the possibility of the appearance of an impropriety. It is the opinion of the committee that representation under these circumstances would not be appropriate. MRCP 1.9 (a) of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, as adopted in Supreme Court Rule 226, effective March 1, 1988, is the rule governing conflict of interest. Specifically, a conflict of interest involving a former client. Rule 1.9 (a) states as follows: "A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter: (a) represent another person in the same or substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client consents after consultation ..." Additionally, Canon 9 of the Professional Code of Ethics provides that: "A lawyer should avoid even the appearance of impropriety." There is no question from the facts that you have presented to us that you in fact represented the husband in the divorce, and not the wife. As such Rule 1.9 (a) clearly governs the factual situation. The wife's request that you increase child support would in fact be brought pursuant to the parties' original divorce action. This would constitute...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT