Conflicts of Interest
Conflicts of Interest
Concurrent, successive, personal-interest, imputed, government, prospective-client, consent, screening, and withdrawal constraints.
Structured Visual
Jurisdiction: US; as of 2026-08-28; not legal advice; Render structure, refuse interpretation, cite, abstain, and hand off.
RENDER STRUCTURE · REFUSE INTERPRETATION · CITE · ABSTAIN · HAND-OFF: render structure, refuse interpretation, cite provenance, abstain when unsupported, and hand off to human review.
Scope and honesty note
Jurisdiction: comparative United States professional-responsibility classroom model as of 2026-08-29. ABA Model Rules are models; jurisdictions adopt variants, and the pinned North Carolina rules are state-published examples rather than universal text. Texas uses its own disciplinary rules. Synthetic facts are classroom inputs, not legal advice. This model cannot form an attorney-client relationship, decide discipline, authorize practice, clear a conflict, waive confidentiality, move client funds, or replace regulator and licensed-attorney review. Cite, expose uncertainty, abstain, and hand off.
See the essential structure first
Start with this deliberately incomplete structure, then use the pinned authorities, worked application, exceptions, and handoff below. This deliberately incomplete preview has 4 nodes; exceptions and legal consequences remain in the sourced prose below.
Jurisdiction: US; as of 2026-08-28; not legal advice; Render structure, refuse interpretation, cite, abstain, and hand off.
RENDER STRUCTURE · REFUSE INTERPRETATION · CITE · ABSTAIN · HAND-OFF: render structure, refuse interpretation, cite provenance, abstain when unsupported, and hand off to human review.
Begin with professional-responsibility doctrine
Concurrent and successive conflicts require different tests. A concurrent conflict exists when clients are directly adverse or there is a significant risk that representation will be materially limited by duties or interests identified in the adopted rule. Some concurrent conflicts are nonconsentable; consentable conflicts require every condition, including informed consent confirmed in writing. A former-client conflict asks whether the new matter is the same or substantially related and materially adverse, subject to the former client's informed consent confirmed in writing. Confidential information, imputation, screening, government service, prospective clients, personal interests, and withdrawal are separate constraints. A database match is a review signal, never conflict clearance.
Concurrent conflicts
The published state rule pins direct adversity, material limitation, consentability, and informed written-confirmation requirements. Verbatim source text: “(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if: (1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or (2) the representation of one or more clients may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client, or a third person, or by a personal interest of the lawyer. (b) Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a client if: (1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client; (2) the representation is not prohibited by law; (3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal; and (4) each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.” Source: N.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.7; https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/rules-of-professional-conduct/10-119-client-lawyer-relationship/17-conflict-of-interest-current-clients/; official-source fixture (not neochart).
Former-client conflicts
The published state rule pins same-or-substantially-related matters, material adversity, consent, and former-client information duties. Verbatim source text: “(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 1.6 and 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 is contained in the public record, was disclosed at a public hearing, or was otherwise publicly disseminated; or (2) reveal information relating to the representation except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client. A lawyer may disclose information otherwise covered by Rule 1.6 that is contained in the public record, was disclosed at a public hearing, or was otherwise publicly disseminated unless the information would likely be embarrassing or detrimental to the client if disclosed.” Source: N.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.9; https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/rules-of-professional-conduct/10-119-client-lawyer-relationship/19-duties-to-former-clients/; official-source fixture (not neochart).
Information constraint
The confidentiality rule anchors the separate restriction on using or revealing protected client information. Verbatim source text: “(a) A lawyer shall not reveal information acquired during the professional relationship with a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b). (b) A lawyer may reveal information protected from disclosure by paragraph (a) to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary: (1) to comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct, the law or court order; (2) to prevent the commission of a crime by the client; (3) to prevent reasonably certain death or bodily harm; (4) to prevent, mitigate, or rectify the consequences of a client's criminal or fraudulent act in the commission of which the lawyer's services were used; (5) to secure legal advice about the lawyer's compliance with these Rules; (6) to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client; to establish a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer based upon conduct in which the client was involved; or to respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer's representation of the client; (7) to comply with the rules of a lawyers' or judges' assistance program approved by the North Carolina State Bar or the North Carolina Supreme Court; or (8) to detect and resolve conflicts of interest arising from the lawyer's change of employment or from changes in the composition or ownership of a firm, but only if the revealed information would not compromise the attorney-client privilege or otherwise prejudice the client. (c) A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client. (d) The duty of confidentiality described in this Rule encompasses information received by a lawyer then acting as an agent of a lawyers' or judges' assistance program approved by the North Carolina State Bar or the North Carolina Supreme Court regarding another lawyer or judge seeking assistance or to whom assistance is being offered. For the purposes of this Rule, "client" refers to lawyers seeking assistance from lawyers' or judges' assistance programs approved by the North Carolina State Bar or the North Carolina Supreme Court.” Source: N.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.6; https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/rules-of-professional-conduct/10-119-client-lawyer-relationship/16-confidentiality-of-information/; official-source fixture (not neochart).
Pin the synthetic representation record
A synthetic conflicts graph links clients, former clients, affiliates, adversaries, witnesses, third-party payors, lawyer financial interests, matter subjects, confidential-information categories, firm offices, lateral lawyers, screens, consents, engagement scopes, waivers, and withdrawal events.
Work the ethics application
The Seller representation creates direct adversity in the acquisition even though its regulatory matter is unrelated, so the concurrent path and consentability conditions control. The lawyer's stock creates a separate material-limitation inquiry. The prior negotiation of the same agreement enters the former-client same-or-substantially-related and material-adversity test. A proposed screen is not assumed sufficient; the adopted imputation rule, timing, access controls, notice, and fee restrictions must authorize it.
Read the populated ethics record
The conflict record contains person, client, former client, prospective client, affiliate, matter, scope, subject, adversity, limitation risk, lawyer interest, third person, confidential information, substantial relationship, material adversity, consentability, informed consent, writing, imputation, lateral move, screen, access log, notice, fee, withdrawal, unresolved match, and reviewer. The artifact contains 16 populated rows.
Jurisdiction: US; as of 2026-08-28; not legal advice; Render structure, refuse interpretation, cite, abstain, and hand off.
RENDER STRUCTURE · REFUSE INTERPRETATION · CITE · ABSTAIN · HAND-OFF: render structure, refuse interpretation, cite provenance, abstain when unsupported, and hand off to human review.
Read the complete record
The complete record keeps sources, stated facts, and questions for review separate. Pinned authorities: Verbatim state statute or official-source rule. N.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.7: Concurrent conflicts: The published state rule pins direct adversity, material limitation, consentability, and informed written-confirmation requirements.. N.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.9: Former-client conflicts: The published state rule pins same-or-substantially-related matters, material adversity, consent, and former-client information duties.. N.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.6: Information constraint: The confidentiality rule anchors the separate restriction on using or revealing protected client information.. Synthetic representation record: Classroom facts, not conclusions. Current matters: Firm represents Buyer in acquisition while another office advises Seller in unrelated regulatory work; lawyer owns vendor stock. Former matter: Lawyer previously represented Seller in negotiation of the same supply agreement now challenged for Buyer. Firm events: New hire brings former-client information, intake search returns aliases, engagement scope changes, consent request and screen are proposed. Ethics trace: Constraint, exception, consent, safeguard, escalation, review. Concurrent Rule One Point Seven: Direct adversity or significant risk representation will be materially limited by another client, former client, third person, or lawyer interest. Consentability: Reasonable belief in competent diligent representation, not prohibited by law, no opposing claims in same proceeding, each affected client's informed consent confirmed in writing. Successive Rule One Point Nine: Former representation, same or substantially related matter, current person's interests materially adverse, former client's informed consent confirmed in writing. Information: Confidentiality, use, materiality, public availability, authorization, need-to-know, access, screen, notice and audit. Imputation and mobility: Firm definition, associated lawyer, personal conflict, former-firm conflict, government or prospective client, screen availability, fee sharing, notice, withdrawal. Lifecycle: Intake, aliases, relationships, matter scope, conflict change, consent, engagement terms, monitoring, escalation, withdrawal and file protection.
Narrow summary
Run concurrent and former-client tests separately, test consentability before consent, keep confidentiality and imputation distinct, and never treat a search hit or screen as automatic clearance.