Joint Representation of Injured Party and Medical Insurance Carrier Holding Subrogation Agreement
Opinion rules that a lawyer may jointly represent a personal injury victim and the medical insurance carrier that holds a subrogation agreement with the victim provided the victim consents and the lawyer withdraws upon the development of an actual conflict of interest.
Editor's Note: This opinion was originally published as RPC 170 (Revised).
Attorney A represents Victim B with respect to her personal injury claim. Carrier C provides health insurance benefits under an ERISA health insurance plan. Victim B has signed a "subrogation authorization form" for Carrier C which purports to give Carrier C the right to seek reimbursement directly from Tortfeasor D for benefits paid on behalf of Victim B because of her injuries. For purposes of effecting this recovery from Tortfeasor D, Carrier C wants to retain Attorney A to also represent Carrier C. May Attorney A represent both Victim B and Carrier C?
Yes, if Attorney A reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected and the client consents after full disclosure of the implications of the common representation. Rule 5.1(b).
If so, what must Attorney A do if an actual conflict of interest arises in representing both parties?
Attorney A has a continuing obligation to evaluate the situation and must withdraw from the representation of both parties upon the development of an actual conflict of interest, unless one party consents, after full disclosure, to Attorney A's continued representation of the other party. Rule 5.1(c) and Rule 5.1(d).
Is there any way, by advance agreement with Carrier C or otherwise, for Attorney A to ethically continue representing Victim B in the event that a conflict of interest arises?
Yes, provided the four conditions for a waiver of a future conflict of interest set forth in RPC 168 are met at the time that a conflict arises. See Rule 5.1(c).