Solicitor' term 'Conflict of Interest'

[midgie]

A solicitor has been acting on a close member of my family's behalf for 3 months, for an accusation of assault - his trial is on Friday this week. This firm has acted on all legal matters for my family since the early 60's. Today he received a letter informing he they can no longer act for him in the criminal due to conflict of interest.

I am flabbergasted at such short notice. Is this normal?

The same firm is acting on his behalf for his (totally non-acrimonious) divorce from a non-connected party (non-connected in the assault accusation case).

From what i understand, 'conflict of interest' usually means the solicitor is acting on behalf of a another person involved in the case? Any light anyone can shed would be very welcome indeed as I am very concerned about my mother's health.

[tamborine]

seems solicitors are working for opposing clients

[midgie]

Thanks Tamborine, I agree it sounds that way but I was really hoping there might be some other explanation of 'conflict' as surely, it can't have taken them 3 months to discover they are working on behalf of both parties. Also, surely, the duration of our family's relationship with the solicitor counts for something where 'interests' are concerned?

It's all very worrying. I am disturbed as my relation's case is supported by legal aid and potentially, the other party's isn't (I don't know). The other party's parents are influential and wealthy, our family isn't. Sorry if this is sounding paranoid but I just find it strange that almost at the 11th hour our solicitor has pulled the plug?

[fredpuli47]

It might be that the solicitor has discovered that a witness in the case is someone known personally to him/her or for whom he or she has acted or his firm has acted ,or is acting. There may be quite a number of reasons for feeling there's a conflict.It would be particularly unfortunate , and embarrassing,for the lawyer to be accusing someone known to him of being a liar! it does sometimes happen that nobody knows or appreciates this until a late stage. ( I knew a case where the solicitors didn't discover they were acting for both sides in the same proceeding until counsel turned up at the first early hearing! The parties had separately seen different solicitors in the same small firm, each of whom had instructed counsel without knowing that ')

[ummmm]

When I went to my Solicitors about the sale of my house, splitting the money etc. She done a search on my Ex. If he'd ever been a client of theirs she wouldn't be able to represent me.

[Buenchico]

There's one possibility that seems not to have been mentioned here:

A solicitor naturally has a duty to his client. But he also has a duty to the court, to ensure that he never knowingly puts any information before the court which he knows to be untrue. If a client admits to his solicitor (either directly or indirectly) that he is guilty of the offence which he's been charged with, but asks the solicitor to represent him on a 'not guilty' plea, the solicitor must withdraw because of the conflict of interests in his duties to his client and to the court.

So perhaps the solicitor has reached the conclusion that your relative is definitely guilty, even though he intends to plead 'not guilty'. If so, the solicitor would be obliged to withdraw from the case, citing 'conflict of interest' as his reason for doing so.

Chris

[midgie]

Thank you all for taking the time to respond with such helpful clues. I am stunned to hear that small law firms (such as the one in this case) can find out at such a late stage that they have 'conflicting' clients in a single case.

It's just possible that the law firm handled the other side's recent case where she received a driving ban due to drink driving. I have a suspicion that the person used her married name for that case and this recently came to light.

Chris, that's an interesting perspective. I will have to find out whether 'indirectly' is a possibility in what was a case of self defence.

Thanks again