Appearances
Kalim Khan; Glen Schwartz; Ron Harper
Choose Exit Over Waiver Request
KK
Vol. 1September 7, 2026 – October 19, 2026Est. Featured
A New Era in Legal Journalism and Expertise
A New Era in Legal Journalism and Expertise
Q&A
Conflicts of interest present some of the most challenging ethical dilemmas for attorneys, with consequences ranging from disciplinary action to malpractice claims. This article examines three critical approaches to managing these situations: withdrawing from representation, disclosing risks for client decision-making, and obtaining informed consent. Legal ethics experts share their insights on when each strategy is appropriate and how to implement them effectively in practice.
Kalim Khan; Glen Schwartz; Ron Harper
I discovered mid litigation that our opposing party's parent company was a former client from five years earlier on an unrelated corporate matter creating technical conflict that probably could have been waived. Instead of asking both clients to sign waivers I just withdrew immediately because conflict waivers are minefields where clients agree initially then use the conflict to challenge your work later if outcomes disappoint them.
The judgment call was that $200k in fees wasn't worth the malpractice exposure from a conflict that would be weaponized against us if the case went badly. Clients signing waivers don't actually forgive conflicts, they just defer complaints until they need ammunition to avoid paying bills or blame you for losses that were inevitable regardless of representation quality.
What I learned is that evaluating waiver appropriateness isn't a legal analysis question but a risk assessment about whether clients will use the conflict against you later. The technically permissible conflicts with proper waivers are often terrible business decisions because they create permanent leverage for unhappy clients to destroy your reputation even when you did nothing wrong besides asking them to waive something they pretended to understand.
Glen SchwartzPartner, Nathens SiegelAs soon as a potential conflict is known, I would advice my client of the nature of said conflict. I would then explain his/her right not to waive the conflict. I would also explain to the client what would happen if the conflict was waived or not waived in terms of my client or the opposing party having to find new counsel or not depending on which side of the file the conflict exists. I would also make it clear to my client the potential pros and cons of waiving said conflict and ultimately leave it up to the client to decide after answering all questions the client may have surrounding the potential conflict.
Ron HarperLicensed Paralegal/Owner, OTD Ticket Defenders Legal ServicesI evaluate a potential conflict the same way I used to evaluate a witness's reliability, by asking whether the underlying risk can be managed transparently. The guidelines on joint retainers published by the Ontario Law Society say a licensee "must obtain the informed consent of each joint client in writing or confirmed in writing" when a conflict may arise. Informed consent means not only that the client knows there is a conflict, but how the conflict might adversely affect them. If the conflict touches the core of my representation or creates irreconcilable loyalties, I don't ask for a waiver. I withdraw
A judgment call I made involved representing two drivers in a intersection accident. Their accounts at first matched up but new eyewitness reports put their versions at odds. I had them meet face-to-face, and explained that my duty to one client could harm the other and laid out the exact risks if I stayed on. They both signed a waiver after consulting their own advisors. The file moved forward without a single complaint. The waiver was effective because it was specific, not a form. It identified the witnesses, the changing time lines, and the potential to owe damages to the other client. Generic is not specific. When a conflict arises in the course of a matter, you either get specific and detailed informed consent, or you move aside. There is no third option.
Regular reviews of clients, matters, and staff ties catch slow-building conflicts that daily checks may miss. Simple reports can flag shared investors, new corporate parents, or silent links between clients. Look back steps before opening a new matter can test recent changes against the conflicts policy.
Reviews should also cover vendors and new hires, since outside links can move risk into the firm. Findings need follow up, with fixes tracked until each item is closed. Schedule these audits on a set calendar and start the first one this quarter.
A single, firm-wide conflicts system makes it easier to spot problems before work starts. A live client database should track clients, related companies, matters, and key people with clear names and tags. Intake forms should capture who is involved on the other side and how they connect to current clients.
Role based access and audit logs help protect data while showing who checked what and when. Training and drills keep staff fast and accurate when running searches. Build this one trusted record now so every new matter gets a full check before any time is billed.
Narrow scopes reduce conflicts because the firm is not hired for issues outside a defined task. Each letter of engagement should spell out what is in scope, what is out of scope, and when the work ends. Clear limits also aid informed consent when a client agrees to a waiver for a future matter.
Billing plans and timelines should match the scope so no one assumes extra duties exist. When goals change, amendments should be short and filed before more work is done. Start using tight, plain language scopes on every new file today.
Information barriers reduce risk by keeping teams and files apart when clients have competing interests. Access to digital folders should be limited to the cleared team, and email groups should reflect that limit. Physical steps, like secure drawers and separate meeting rooms, back up the tech limits.
Written notices to all staff set the rule that no one may share facts across the wall. Regular tests and sign offs show that the wall is holding and that no leak has occurred. Put these barriers in place before accepting a matter that needs them.
When facts sit close to a conflict line, outside ethics counsel can offer a neutral view that puts client duty first. Early advice helps shape screening steps and consent terms in a way that regulators expect. Written opinions from that lawyer can support legal privilege and show a good faith process if a challenge is made.
Malpractice carriers also tend to view such consultation as proof of strong risk control. The cost is small when compared to the harm of being removed from a case or losing fees in court. Line up independent ethics help now so tough calls are guided by clear advice.