Ohio Board Advisory Opinion Op 89-005

The Supreme Court of Ohio
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS ON GRIEVANCES AND DISCIPLINE
41 SOUTH HIGH STREET-SUITE 3370, COLUMBUS, OH 43215-6105
(614) 644-5800 FAX: (614) 644-5804
OFFICE OF SECRETARY
OPINION 89-005
Issued February 17, 1989
[CPR Opinion-provides advice under the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility which is superseded by the Ohio
Rules of Professional Conduct, eff. 2/1/2007.]
SYLLABUS: When two individual attorneys share office space the facts and circumstances of
their relationship will determine if they can ethically represent opposing sides in a case. Under DR
5-101(A), maintaining such representation will require full disclosure and subsequent consent from
the clients. Additionally, protection must be taken to preserve the confidentiality of the attorney-
client relationship as set forth in DR 4-101.
OPINION: We have before us your request for an advisory opinion on a possible conflict of
interest involving two attorneys who share office space and who represent opposing sides in a
contested divorce proceeding. You state in your letter that the attorneys' letterheads are separate,
they employ separate secretaries, and, in most respects operate autonomously. The major concern
appears to be in regard to the propriety of the attorneys' representation.
Two attorneys in the same law firm would be prohibited from representing opposing sides
in a contested divorce proceeding. Code of Professional Responsibility, DR 5-105(D). However,
the Code does not explicitly address the office sharing situation. Instead, we must look at the facts
and circumstances of each case to determine whether the lawyers are to be considered independent
of one another. In this particular case, there appears to be no attempt by the attorneys to hold
themselves out to the public as a partnership. This, combined with the fact that the two lawyers'
practices are independent, leads us to believe that the imputed disqualification rules should not be
applied in this particular situation. Id.
Both lawyers must still meet the requirements of DR 5-101(A). See, ABA Committee on
Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Informal Op. 1486 (1982). Disciplinary Rule 5-101(A)
states:

Op. 89-005 2
[e]xcept with the consent of his client after full disclosure, a lawyer
shall not accept employment if the exercise of his professional
judgment on behalf of his client will be or reasonably may be
affected by his own financial, business, property, or personal
interests.
In this case, it would appear that there is at least the possibility of financial or personal
interests arising that could affect either attorney's judgment. The client's consent is required as set
forth in DR 5-101(A) and also in EC 5-21 which states:
. . . [a] lawyer subjected to outside pressures should make full
disclosure of them to his client; and if he or his client believes that
the effectiveness of his representation has been or will be impaired
thereby, the lawyer should take proper steps to withdraw from
representation of his client.
Both lawyers then must make full disclosure of their office arrangement and receive the consent of
their clients to continue the representation.
Another important factor to consider is the confidentiality of the attorney-client relationship.
As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, " . . . it is essential that a lawyer work with a certain degree
of privacy, free from unnecessary intrusion by opposing parties and their counsel." Hickman v.
Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510 (1947). Similarly, EC 4-1 states in part:
[t]he observance of the ethical obligation of a lawyer to hold inviolate
the confidences and secrets of his client not only facilitates the full
development of facts essential to proper representation of the client
but also encourages laymen to seek early legal assistance. See, also,
DR 4-101.

Op. 89-005 3
Sharing office space with opposing counsel at least raises the possibility that the client's
confidences may not be maintained. To insure confidentiality in this situation, all materials relating
to this divorce action should be kept stored separately by the individual lawyers in locked file
cabinets. In addition, the secretaries of the two lawyers should not share any work relating to the
divorce proceeding at issue in this request.
Due to the difficult nature of this type of arrangement, all possible caution should be used
by both lawyers to preserve each client's right to privacy and confidentiality. Also, Canon 9
requires lawyers to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Thus, although not prohibited by the
Code, we discourage two lawyers who share office space from representing opposing sides in a
contested divorce proceeding.
In conclusion, it is our opinion, and you are so advised, that the Code of Professional
Responsibility does not explicitly forbid two lawyers in an office sharing arrangement from
representing opposing parties in a contested divorce but does place a burden on the respective
attorneys to operate within the guidelines of DR 5-101(A) and DR 4-101. The clients must be
made aware of the personal and financial relationship between the two attorneys so that the clients
can make an informed decision regarding their representation. Additionally, strict client
confidentiality must be maintained, and the privacy of the individual clients respected.
This is an informal, non-binding advisory opinion based upon the facts presented and
limited to questions arising under the Code of Professional Responsibility.