Bloomberg. It may be an unfair generalization, but my experience is that courts and state bars in the South are less willing to credit a client's ability to consent. Excerpt:
A trial court got it right in ruling that a law firm could not represent defendants in a personal injury action while also representing the plaintiff's employer in asserting a lien on any recovery the plaintiff receives in the lawsuit, the Florida District Court of Appeal, First District, decided Oct. 9 (Anheuser-Busch Cos. v. Staples, 2013 BL 280310, Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1st Dist., No. 1D13-1038, 10/9/13).
The three judges on the appellate panel produced three opinions that spotlight the question whether clients' consent makes it permissible for a law firm to represent parties that have divergent interests but still want to hire a single firm to represent them.
Although the majority opinion does not directly address the issue, Chief Judge Joseph Lewis Jr. said in dicta that it was unreasonable for the law firm to believe it could adequately represent the premises liability defendants while concurrently representing the plaintiffs' employer in pressing a workers' compensation lien on the plaintiff's recovery.
Another panel member, concurring, insisted that the conflict of interest facing the law firm was nonconsentable because its clients were adversaries in litigation.
In dissent, another judge argued that the clients' consent cured the conflict in the procedural posture of this case, which had been sent to mediation. It is reasonable for a law firm to believe it will be able to provide solid representation to sophisticated corporate businesses that have voluntarily waived any conflict in writing, he contended.