What is the implication when an attorney’s advice conflicts with their personal interests?

When an attorney's advice conflicts with their personal interests, the implication is that the representation of the client is materially limited. This situation arises from the attorney's dual obligations—first to provide competent, zealous representation to the client and second, their own personal or financial interests that may interfere with that duty.

In this context, "materially limited" indicates that the lawyer's ability to represent the client effectively is restricted by their personal interests. This could lead to a situation where the lawyer cannot fully advocate for the client's best interests, as their judgment may be unduly influenced by their self-interest. In such cases, the attorney has an obligation to disclose the conflict to the client.

It is essential for the attorney to communicate any potential conflicts and the implications of those conflicts. This step ensures that the client can make an informed decision regarding their representation. Notably, if the conflict is significant and cannot be adequately addressed through disclosure, the attorney may need to consider recusal from the representation to uphold ethical standards. However, simply recusing oneself or prioritizing personal interests does not address the need for transparency and the obligation to inform the client, thus making it critical that the representation is clearly identified as being materially limited as a result of the conflict.