What should a lawyer do if they become aware of a conflict after accepting representation?

When a lawyer becomes aware of a conflict of interest after accepting representation, the most ethical course of action is to withdraw from the representation if informed consent cannot be obtained. This safeguard protects the integrity of the attorney-client relationship and upholds the duty of loyalty owed to clients.

The rationale behind this choice is rooted in the core principles of legal ethics, which prioritize a lawyer's obligation to represent their client without divided loyalties. If a conflict emerges and the lawyer cannot obtain informed consent from all affected clients, continuing representation could compromise the lawyer's ability to provide effective and undivided advocacy.

Thus, withdrawing from the representation allows the lawyer to uphold their ethical obligations and ensures that clients receive the representation they deserve without any conflicts interfering with the zeal and fidelity expected from their legal counsel. This approach not only aligns with professional responsibility standards but also helps maintain the public's trust in the legal profession.

Addressing the other options highlights why they do not align with ethical expectations: ignoring a conflict disregards the responsibilities of disclosure and client autonomy, notifying the client while continuing representation may perpetuate the conflict and undermine the client's informed decision-making, and transferring the case without proper consultation with the client may not be feasible or permissible without consent.