Is there a potential conflict of interest if a lawyer represents both a divorcee and a company with shares in family property?

The assertion that there is a potential conflict of interest when a lawyer represents both a divorcee and a company with shares in family property is grounded in the fundamental principles of professional responsibility and the duty of loyalty that lawyers owe to their clients.

When a lawyer takes on the representation of two parties whose interests may diverge—such as an individual in a divorce and a corporate entity with claims to family property—they may find themselves in a position where obligations to one client could compromise their ability to represent the other effectively. The divorcee's interests might include securing a full share of marital property, while the company may have a vested interest in protecting its financial stakes or asserting claims that could be detrimental to the divorcee.

This situation creates an inherent conflict, as the lawyer might face difficulty in advocating for the best possible outcome for both clients without prejudicing one in favor of the other. Legal ethics rules often require that lawyers avoid representing clients with conflicting interests unless informed consent is obtained from all affected clients after full disclosure. In many jurisdictions, such scenarios might not be permissible, especially in sensitive matters like family law where emotional and financial stakes are high.

Moreover, while the idea of obtaining client agreement might seem to mitigate potential conflicts, it does not eliminate the conflict