Under what conditions can a lawyer represent clients despite a concurrent conflict?

A lawyer can represent clients despite a concurrent conflict of interest when written consent is provided by each client involved. This principle is rooted in the understanding that clients should have the autonomy to make informed decisions about their representation. When a lawyer identifies a conflict of interest, they have an obligation to disclose this conflict to the affected clients and to obtain their informed consent before proceeding with the representation.

Written consent serves as a formal acknowledgment that the clients are aware of the conflict and agree to the lawyer's continued representation despite it. This consent must be based on full disclosure of the nature of the conflict, the risks involved, and the implications for the clients' interests. The requirement for written consent acts as a safeguard to ensure that clients are not only aware of potential biases or divided loyalties but are also voluntarily accepting those risks.

In contexts such as shared representations, conflict resolution experience, or prior disclosures, while these may seem relevant, they do not establish a valid basis for overriding a conflict of interest without informed written consent. The fundamental rule remains that informed consent is a critical component of ethical representation in situations involving conflicts of interest.