Illinois Rule 1.7: Understanding Conflicts of Interest as a Lawyer
Illinois Rule 1.7 governs how attorneys handle conflicts of interest when representing current clients, and it plays a critical role in ethical legal practice across the state. For Illinois attorneys, understanding and properly applying this rule is essential not only to maintain compliance with professional conduct standards but also to avoid potential malpractice claims and disciplinary action.
The rule is centered on one key concept: whether a concurrent conflict of interest exists that would materially limit a lawyer’s ability to represent a client with full loyalty and independent judgment. From identifying direct adversity between clients to managing personal interests that could influence decision-making, Illinois Rule 1.7 offers clear criteria and procedures that must be followed.
What Is a Concurrent Conflict Under Illinois Rule 1.7?
A concurrent conflict of interest arises under Illinois Rule 1.7 when either of two conditions are met: (1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or (2) there is a significant risk that the lawyer’s representation of a client will be materially limited by responsibilities to another client, a former client, a third party, or by the lawyer’s own interests.
Direct adversity is relatively straightforward. For example, an attorney cannot represent a plaintiff in a lawsuit against another client, even if the two matters are unrelated. Doing so could undermine the trust and loyalty owed to each client and may impair the lawyer’s ability to provide objective advice.
Material limitations can be more subtle. Suppose an attorney is asked to represent multiple clients in forming a joint venture. Even if all parties are generally aligned, differing interests might influence the advice given to each. The attorney’s responsibilities to one client could prevent fully advocating for another, thereby creating a significant risk of compromised representation.
The rule also covers personal conflicts, such as when an attorney’s financial or employment interests interfere with client representation. Illinois Rule 1.7 requires lawyers to actively assess such risks before taking on or continuing with a client matter. Failure to recognize these conflicts can lead to ethical violations, client dissatisfaction, and professional discipline.
Attorneys must have conflict-check procedures in place and apply them consistently to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. Understanding when a concurrent conflict exists is the first step in managing it effectively.
When Can a Lawyer Proceed Despite a Conflict?
Illinois Rule 1.7 does allow attorneys to proceed with representation in the presence of a concurrent conflict—but only under strict conditions. Paragraph (b) of the rule outlines four specific criteria that must all be met before proceeding:
Competent and Diligent Representation – The lawyer must reasonably believe they can still offer competent and diligent service to each affected client.
No Legal Prohibition – The representation must not be forbidden by law.
No Direct Claims Between Clients in the Same Proceeding – The clients must not be asserting claims against one another in the same litigation or tribunal setting.
Informed Consent – Each affected client must give informed consent in writing after full disclosure.
Of these, informed consent is often the most complex. Under Rule 1.0(e), informed consent means the client understands the material risks and potential consequences of the conflict. This includes how confidentiality, loyalty, and decision-making might be affected.
The lawyer must explain the situation in clear, understandable terms. Boilerplate waivers or vague explanations are not sufficient. The consent must be specific, written, and based on meaningful communication.
Even if all four elements are present, lawyers must evaluate whether the conflict is “consentable.” Some conflicts, like direct adversity in a courtroom setting, may never be ethically waivable. Illinois Rule 1.7 emphasizes that client consent does not override professional standards or the court’s interest in fair proceedings.
By following these guidelines, attorneys can protect themselves from disciplinary action while still preserving the ability to serve clients with complex, overlapping interests. The key is to approach every potential conflict with transparency, diligence, and a firm grasp of the ethical rules.
Staying Compliant with Illinois Rule 1.7: Why It Matters More Than Ever
Illinois Rule 1.7 is one of the most important—and often misunderstood—ethical rules for practicing attorneys. It provides a structured framework for assessing and managing conflicts of interest, whether they involve direct adversity between clients, material limitations caused by other obligations, or personal interests that could compromise professional judgment.
Failure to comply with this rule can have serious consequences, including client harm, loss of trust, disciplinary action by the ARDC, and exposure to malpractice claims. But when properly applied, Illinois Rule 1.7 allows attorneys to manage real-world complexities with integrity and professionalism.
Lawyers should conduct routine conflict checks, document informed consent with care, and continuously reassess ongoing representations for new risks. By doing so, they safeguard their practice and ensure they fulfill their ethical responsibilities to every client.
In today’s evolving legal landscape, where overlapping client interests and multi-party representations are increasingly common, staying compliant with Illinois Rule 1.7 is not just a rulebook requirement—it’s a hallmark of quality legal service. To safeguard your legal practice, contact the risk management and professional liability team at ISBA Mutual Insurance Company.
