Bench & Bar September/October 2026

CORNER By contrast, if the prior representation included separate meetings or confidential communications with one spouse outside the presence of the other, no waiver of confidentiality occurs and the lawyer may not later represent one spouse against the other. While KBA E-245 predates the cur rent Rules of Professional Conduct, its core reasoning remains consistent with modern Rules 1.6 (confidentiality), 1.7 (current-cli ent conflicts), and 1.9 (duties to former clients). Comment 3 to the Rule provides some additional guidance but it is not determi native in providing an answer to the issue of the lawyer’s later adverse representation. 1 Decisions from other states illustrate the complexity of the issues and adopt a more restrictive view than the exception allowed by KBA E-245.

information obtained in the prior represen tation would materially advance the client’s position in the divorce. The Bars of New Hampshire 4 and Florida 5 emphasize the problem of “separate con fidences” (i.e., when one spouse shares information with the lawyer outside the other’s presence). If a lawyer acquires inti mate knowledge of one spouse’s financial information that materially affects the other spouse’s interests, the lawyer is prohibited from later representing either spouse in a divorce and mandatory withdrawal of both if the divorce proceedings have already commenced. Kentucky’s position, as stated in KBA E-245, is supported by cases that uphold the “no

SCR 3.130(1.9) provides that a lawyer who has represented a client may not later represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter when that per son’s interests are materially adverse to the former client, absent informed consent. HOUSTON AUTO APPRAISERS IACP Certified Auto Appraisal Services - Nationwide The Illinois State Bar Association 2 and the North Carolina State Bar 3 both con cluded that a lawyer is prohibited from representing one spouse in a divorce after doing their joint estate planning. The prior representation was deemed substantially related because it “of necessity involves a sharing of confidences” about marital assets. North Carolina, for instance, stressed the substantial risk that confidential financial

Office: 1-877-845-2368 Cell: 832-279-2368 Roy@HoustonAutoAppraisers.com 1300 Rollingbrook Drive, Suite 406 Baytown, Texas 77521

SERVICES INCLUDE

DIMINISHED VALUE APPRAISALS TOTAL LOSS APPRAISAL CLAUSE LOSS OF USE CLAIMS / LOSS OF REVENUE INSURANCE POLICY APPRAISALS CERTIFIED BANK LOAN APPRAISALS DIVORCE / PROBATE / ESTATE APPRAISALS LARGE LOSS CLAIMS OVER $1 MILLION IRS 8283 TAX DONATION APPRAISALS EVENT DATA RECORDER (EDR) DOWNLOADS

CAR DEALER FRAUD LAWSUITS COURT EXPERT WITNESS SERVICES RESTORATION SHOP LAWSUITS DTPA - DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT MAGNUSON-MOSS WARRANTY CLAIMS BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIMS CONSUMER PROTECTION SERVICES DEALERSHIP OUT OF BUSINESS ISSUES CERTIFIED MEDIATOR & ARBITRATOR

BONDED TITLES & SURETY BONDS TITLE TRANSFERS / ESCROW SERVICES STANDARD PRESUMPTIVE VALUE (-$) MECHANICS LIEN SERVICES AUCTION TITLES / LOST TITLE ISSUES ASSIGNED VIN NUMBER / CHASSIS NO’S AUTO TITLE FRAUD / COD / LITIGATION GRAY MARKET VEHICLE TITLE TRANSFER BOAT / TRAILER / MOTORCYCLE TITLES

HoustonAutoAppraisers.com

33 bench & bar