Ethics Opinion 243
离婚案件的共同代理
* [NOTE: See how Opinion 243 受到《靠谱的足球滚球平台》修订的实质影响.C. 2007年2月1日生效的《靠谱的滚球平台》
寻求帮助就离婚条件达成协议的离婚夫妻，靠谱的滚球平台不得共同代理.
Applicable Rules
- Rule 1.7(a)(同时代表有不利利益的客户)
- Rule 2.2 (Intermediary)
Inquiry
The inquiring lawyer, 谁既是执业靠谱的滚球平台又是按立的牧师, has been working as a mediator in domestic relations for the Multi-Door Dispute Resolution Division of the Superior Court and as an arbitrator for the Attorney-Client Arbitration Board of the D.C. Bar. 她建议开始一项私人法律业务，在几个方面超越她目前的调解工作. 根据她的提议，她将与双方建立客户-靠谱的滚球平台关系. 作为共同代理的一部分, 询问者将向配偶双方提供法律资料和有限的法律咨询意见. At the same time, 她打算在帮助双方达成详细的离婚协议方面发挥积极作用, 这将涵盖财产分配等问题, spousal support, child custody, and child support. 她的角色将包括提出旨在促进双方共同利益的解决方案, 就像她目前从事的调解工作一样. 询问者进一步建议起草和提交必要的协议，并在法院代表配偶双方.
询问者说，她将在规则2的保障下进行联合陈述.2 of the D.C. 《靠谱的足球滚球平台》和本署第19号意见所载的准则. 143(1984)，全文如下. 她只代表这些客户办理调解离婚. She would undertake joint representation only after determining that each spouse is capable of making adequately informed decisions and that the matter can be resolved on terms compatible with the best interests of both clients. After providing the clients with a written explanation of the risks of joint representation and of the circumstances that might later cause separate representation to be necessary or desirable, 她将获得他们知情的书面同意. The inquirer would withdraw from the representation if any of the above conditions ceased to be satisfied or if either client requested her to do so. Thereafter, 她不会在离婚或任何其他事情上代表任何一个客户. 在任何时候，客户都有权聘请自己的私人靠谱的滚球平台审查协议.
Discussion
Opinion No. 第143条，根据前D.C. 职业责任守则, 这是本委员会唯一一次直接审议离婚案件中的共同代理问题. In that opinion, 我们声明:“作为一般规则，夫妻共同代理离婚在道德上是不允许的,，但认为根据调查中提出的有限和具体的事实，这是允许的. 调查中的具体事实涉及配偶就业状况相当的离婚案件, salaries, 教育背景; where no children were involved; and where the parties had already agreed upon a division of property and “all other substantial settlement terms 在聘请靠谱的滚球平台之前” (emphasis added). 寻求靠谱的滚球平台的协助完全是为了执行这对夫妇先前达成的协议.1
In several respects, 目前的建议远远超出了第一号意见所允许的联合代表. 143. First, 尽管靠谱的滚球平台打算只代表那些“考虑无争议离婚”的夫妇,” she does not intend to restrict her practice to couples who have already agreed upon a division of property and all other substantial issues before retaining her. 其次，她寻求代表有孩子的夫妇和没有孩子的夫妇. Third, 她并不打算在配偶就业状况不同的情况下自动拒绝代理, salaries, 教育背景, 只要双方都能做出充分知情的决定. In short, 她建议在当事各方, 尽管有不同的兴趣和观点, 寻求达成无争议的离婚协议.
Although Opinion No. 143从未说过，在情况与调查中概述的具体事实不符时，联合代理是不道德的, 该意见无疑表明，在离婚案件中，共同代理通常是不允许的. We think that the Opinion’s reasoning clearly precludes joint representation of husband and wife in the broad range of circumstances envisioned by the inquiry. 然后，我们将注意力转向D.C. 职业行为规则——特别是规则2.2, a new rule on intermediation that had no counterpart in the Code—so significantly change the governing law as to permit joint representation of husband and wife in divorce cases in the broad range of circumstances she contemplates. 基于以下理由，我们认为他们没有.
It must be emphasized at the outset that the 职业行为准则 preserve and reinforce basic ethical standards about representation of parties with adverse interests. Rule 1.第7(a)条绝对禁止靠谱的滚球平台就同一事项中的不利立场代表客户.2 On its face, the Rule would appear to prevent joint representation of a divorcing husband and wife who seek assistance in reconciling their differing interests and positions. 并对规则1注释[6].注意到规则1的绝对横条.7(a)只适用于有实际的, 而不是名义上的, 逆境中的客户, cites Opinion No. 第143条规定了规则1所适用的“有限情况”.7(a)“不排除双方在无争议离婚诉讼中均有代表.”
为了确定，对规则1的注释[6].第7条没有明确提到规则2.2. And Rule 2.2 envisions a lawyer, 在适当的情况下, 在两个有潜在利益冲突的客户之间充当中间人.3 See Comment [1]. 这是什么情况，规则2.2 permits common representation if the lawyer “reasonably believes” that she can represent both clients “impartially” and that their potentially conflicting interests can be resolved on terms compatible with both clients’ best interests. 在做出这个决定时, 如果所有客户, 在充分了解情况之后, believe that they will secure greater overall benefit by choosing to develop mutual interests (perhaps at the cost of not exercising all their legal rights to the fullest) and if the lawyer reasonably believes that common representation will be successful in accomplishing this goal.
然而，在处理规则2是否.第2条允许在比第2号意见所允许的更广泛的情况下在离婚案件中共同代理. 143.
首先，如前所述，D.C. 上诉法院，对规则1的评论[6].7(a)强调该意见所述的“有限情况”，其中规则1.7(a)允许在无争议离婚中共同代理. 作为法律问题，该评论是否排除对规则2的解释.在第2号意见以外的任何情况下，允许离婚的丈夫和妻子共同代理. 143是一个很难的问题，我们不需要在这次调查中解决.
第二，我们相信第二条规则.第2条的起草并没有考虑到离婚案件. 对规则的评论从来没有提到离婚作为规则可能适用的情况的一个例子. Moreover, 尽管评论的语言并非完全没有歧义, 我们认为，《靠谱的滚球平台》对共同代表权的处理基本上是为“合资”类型的情况而设计的. 评论的几段话支持这一观点. 评论[3]指出，当靠谱的滚球平台作为非客户之间的调解人时，该规则根本不适用. 调解是在客户-靠谱的滚球平台关系之外进行的吗, 靠谱的滚球平台的行为可能受到其他道德规范的约束, 但不受规则2的约束.2.
评论[6]指出，调解的适当性——即, 根据规则2，靠谱的滚球平台可以作为中介人之前必须满足的标准.2 .取决于中介的形式. 因此，该评论对仲裁和调解与共同代理两者作出了区分. In the former, the lawyer may be called upon to help resolve a dispute between existing clients without representing them and advising them with respect to the subject matter at issue. In arbitration, 靠谱的滚球平台甚至可以在每个客户向靠谱的滚球平台提交案件后决定结果. 在共同代表中, however, 靠谱的滚球平台就争议的主题代表客户，因此对客户负有更广泛的责任. In particular, 通常代表多个客户的靠谱的滚球平台仍然有责任成为每个客户的辩护靠谱的滚球平台和顾问. 如评论[8]所述, a lawyer jointly representing two clients has a duty both to keep each client adequately informed and to maintain confidentiality of information relating to the representation.
因为潜在的冲突给试图共同代理的靠谱的滚球平台带来了最尖锐的问题, the Comment to Rule 2.2 suggests that this form of intermediation should only be undertaken for clients whose mutual interests predominate over any apparent divergence of interests. Comment [6], for instance, 表明共同代表的客户的利益必须基本一致. 评论[7]对共同代理提出了特别的警告，因为靠谱的滚球平台的公正性可能受到质疑. 评论[4]引用了几个“合资企业”类型的例子，这些客户都有一个共同的目标, 例如建立一个新的企业或金融机构. 尽管评论4确实提到了“调解客户之间的纠纷”,“在上下文中，我们认为这是指在某种类型的合资企业中，现有客户之间的纠纷.
Third, 重要的是要记住规则, like the Code, 表达当事人与靠谱的滚球平台关系中不可缺少的某些基本特征, 即使得到了客户的知情同意. 作为规则2的注释.2 reflects, a lawyer jointly representing divorcing spouses may not play an active role in the resolution of issues between them without running a high risk of failing to live up to the responsibilities the lawyer has to both clients—to advise each of them, 代表他们的个人利益, 并保持他们的信心. 正如评论[8]所述, 在充当中介的同时履行这些职责需要一种微妙的平衡，而且可能极其困难, 即使客户在聘请靠谱的滚球平台之前就所有重大问题达成了实质性协议.
这些考虑使我们得出结论，至少在离婚的情况下，规则2.第2条没有对规则1划出任何重要的例外.7. 它是否在第1号意见的“有限情况”之外扩大了离婚共同代理的范围. 这是一个我们不需要在这里解决的难题. 因为毫无疑问，在我们看来，规则2.2不允许本调查所涉及的业务类型- 1.e., the joint representation of a divorcing husband and wife who seek assistance in resolving their disagreement as to the terms of the dissolution of their marriage. We believe that such joint representation would place too great a strain on the fundamental duty of loyalty to individual clients that undergirds our ethical rules. 不管自由裁量权规则1.2让客户定义代理的目标, it does not include the discretion to retain a lawyer under circumstances likely to cause the lawyer to act in ways (or to be perceived to act in ways) detrimental to the client-lawyer relationship.
We emphasize again, however, 只要没有建立客户-靠谱的滚球平台关系，靠谱的滚球平台可以作为寻求离婚的配偶的调解人. Such mediation is not governed by the 职业行为准则 but may be subject to other relevant codes of ethics for mediators or arbitrators. 在这种情况下, 靠谱的滚球平台有义务在一开始就通知所有当事人他或她没有建立客户-靠谱的滚球平台关系, 因此，当事人不能认为靠谱的滚球平台有义务保护他们各自的个人利益, 保护他们的秘密和秘密, 并告知他们所有可能推进其目标的信息.
Appendix
Rule 2.2 Intermediary
(a)靠谱的滚球平台可在下列情况下作为委托人之间的中间人:
靠谱的滚球平台就共同代理的含义与每一位委托人进行磋商, 包括所涉及的优势和风险, 以及对靠谱的滚球平台-当事人特权的影响, 并取得每一当事人对共同代理的同意;
(2)靠谱的滚球平台有理由相信，该事项可以在符合委托人最大利益的条件下得到解决, 每个客户都能在充分知情的情况下做出决定, and that there is little risk of material prejudice to the interests of any of the clients if the contemplated resolution is unsuccessful; and
(3) The lawyer reasonably believes that the common representation can be undertaken impartially and without improper effect on other responsibilities the lawyer has to any of the clients.
(b) A lawyer should, 除非在特殊情况下，这可能使它不可行, provide both clients with an explanation in writing of the risks involved in the common representation and of the circumstances that may cause separate representation later to be necessary or desirable. 客户的同意也应当采用书面形式.
(c)作为中间人, 靠谱的滚球平台应当就应当作出的决定和作出决定的有关考虑事项与委托人进行协商, 这样每个客户都能做出充分知情的决定.
(d)如果任何委托人提出要求，靠谱的滚球平台应退出居间人的身份, 或(a)段所述的任何条件不再满足. Upon withdrawal, 靠谱的滚球平台不得继续就调解事项为当事人代理.
Inquiry No. 92-4-11
通过:1993年10月19日
1. In applying the Code, 其他一些司法管辖区在同样有限的情况下允许共同代理. See e.g., Kentucky Bar Association Opinion E-290 (1984); Oregon Bar Opinion No. 515 (1988).
2. Rule 1.7(a) provides that “A lawyer shall not represent a client with respect to a position to be taken in a matter if that position is adverse to a position taken or to be taken in the same matter by another client represented with respect to that position by the same lawyer.”
3. 规则2的全文.第2条载于本意见附录.
