When must a lawyer reveal a conflict of interest?

What is the name of your state?Connecticut
My mother recently was fired from her job after an extended illness. Believing the firing to be wrongful, she consulted with an attorney and notified the NLRB. After revealing the details of her situation with the attorney, the attorney then notified her they could not take the case due to a conflict of interest as the firm represented my mother's employer. The reason the attorney gave for not revealing the conflict when my mother mentioned the name of her employer was that he "didn't want to interrupt her". Of note, my mother has been reinstated with no legal action (NLRB said she had a strong case for wrongful termination), but I have no doubt that they will fire her for any reason they can. My question is, did the attorney breach an ethical responsibility by listening to the facts of the case (according to my mother) even after he knew the name of the employer and that he could not take the case due to a conflict of interest? Thank you.

There was no conflict of interest. The attorney was being polite. A conflict of interest exists ONLY IF the attorney had agreed to represent her. How do you expect the attorney to know if a conflict exists without knowing the facts of your mother's case.

Tell mom (or you) to quit looking for reasons to sue everyone and get on with doing her job.

BB, I must respectfully disagree. As soon as the attorney knew that the OP's mom was potentially directly adverse to a client he was currently representing, he had the duty to terminate the conversation. If the Mom had not been reinstated and had to sue the company directly, she probably would have a good case to get the attorney disqualified from the matter due to conflict of interest.

How do you expect the attorney to know if a conflict exists without knowing the facts of your mother's case.

Click to expand...

He didn't need to know the facts -- as soon as he knew that she was adverse to his client, that's it.

However, in your scenario IF she had had to sue the company it would have been encumbant on the attorney to remove himself from representing the company. In this scenario there was NO conflict because there was no representation.

So, what the attorney or events MAY have had to do is not the issue. The response must be based on exact facts that currently exists. And, as such, there was no conflict.

Do you ever know what you are talking about. Most on the threads don't think so. Unless you have something of value to say, don't say it. It is of no value to belittle others.