When is a current client conflict generally considered consentable?

A current client conflict is generally considered consentable when it is not forbidden by law or rules. This principle is rooted in the idea that certain conflicts can be managed as long as they do not violate existing legal restrictions or ethical rules governing the practice of law.

When determining whether a conflict is consentable, it is critical to assess whether any specific laws or professional conduct rules explicitly prohibit the representation. If there are no such prohibitions, the lawyer can seek informed consent from the clients involved. Informed consent involves fully disclosing the nature of the conflict and the risks associated with the representation, allowing the clients to make an educated choice about whether to proceed.

Other options, while they each touch on aspects of conflict resolution, do not directly address the core condition of consentability. For instance, resolving a conflict without discussion does not ensure that informed consent is obtained, nor does it provide any legal basis for allowing the representation. Similarly, mutual agreement from clients is essential but becomes irrelevant if the conflict itself is not permissible under the law or ethical rules. Informing clients about a conflict is a necessary step but does not in and of itself make a conflict consentable if there are legal or ethical barriers.