# "I can no longer represent you in this divorce case" **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [September 17, 2014, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-no-longer-represent-you-in-this-divorce-case/698759 "2014-09-17T19:56:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![whc.03grady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a6a055/32.png) [@whc.03grady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whc.03grady)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-no-longer-represent-you-in-this-divorce-case/698759/1 "2014-09-17T19:56:18Z")
Sitch: John and Sally are married with two kids in Texas, but are in the very early stages of getting divorced. Sally, unbeknownst to the husband, has records of texts showing a high likelihood of adultery (or at the very least, planned adultery) which she gives to her lawyer. When everyone comes together for the first time–John, his lawyer, Sally, her lawyer–and John’s lawyer sees these records, he tells John he can no longer represent him. Why? ---
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-no-longer-represent-you-in-this-divorce-case/698759/2 "2014-09-17T20:00:02Z")
John’s lawyer has a professional or personal relationship with the person John has been texting? ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-no-longer-represent-you-in-this-divorce-case/698759/3 "2014-09-17T20:02:33Z")
Or, perhaps, John’s lawyer is himself John’s lover. This sounds to me like a variant of the old “surgeon’s son” riddle, except with the gender assumption replaced by a sexuality assumption. ---
**Author:** ![whc.03grady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a6a055/32.png) [@whc.03grady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whc.03grady)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-no-longer-represent-you-in-this-divorce-case/698759/4 "2014-09-17T20:18:11Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Or, perhaps, John’s lawyer is himself John’s lover. > > This sounds to me like a variant of the old “surgeon’s son” riddle, except with the gender assumption replaced by a sexuality assumption. It’s not a riddle, it’s a real question. ---
**Author:** ![OldGuy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/3bc359/32.png) [@OldGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OldGuy)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-no-longer-represent-you-in-this-divorce-case/698759/5 "2014-09-17T20:18:43Z")
I’d be interested in knowing if a personal relationship with John’s (potential) partner would make his representing John an ethics violation. I could see that if Sally’s lawyer had such a relationship it would be a problem. ---
**Author:** ![gnoitall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gnoitall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gnoitall)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-no-longer-represent-you-in-this-divorce-case/698759/6 "2014-09-17T20:20:24Z")
Is this a hypothetical? If it is, it doesn’t have a factual answer. If it’s concrete, you haven’t provided enough information for a factual answer; speculations towards a factual answer are the best you can expect. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-no-longer-represent-you-in-this-divorce-case/698759/7 "2014-09-17T20:22:27Z")
> [@whc.03grady](#): > > It’s not a riddle, it’s a real question. If it’s a real question, then we need to know what was in the texts. Absent that, either you’re giving us a riddle, or you’re asking for speculation. ---
**Author:** ![whc.03grady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a6a055/32.png) [@whc.03grady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whc.03grady)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-no-longer-represent-you-in-this-divorce-case/698759/8 "2014-09-17T20:22:40Z")
The potential partner is in Pennsylvania, so that probably isn’t it. This is a real-life situation involving my sister and brother in-law (my wife’s sister is the wife). Names were changed. My guesses: The lawyer previously asked John if he’d been unfaithful, and John said he hadn’t. Then when John’s lawyer sees good evidence that his client has been dishonest, he says ‘forget it, buddy’. Or, similarly, The lawyer sees that he’s taken on a loser (or at least a rough uphill battle) and decides to bow out. But I don’t know if lawyers can do things like that. ---
**Author:** ![whc.03grady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a6a055/32.png) [@whc.03grady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whc.03grady)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-no-longer-represent-you-in-this-divorce-case/698759/9 "2014-09-17T20:25:27Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > If it’s a real question, then we need to know what was in the texts. The texts are to another woman and apparently make it obvious he was setting up a liason, and that there has been ongoing emotional infidelity, at least. > [@RTFirefly](#): > > Absent that, either you’re giving us a riddle, or you’re asking for speculation. Of course I’m asking for speculation, reasoned speculation. The only way I could get at the answer for sure is to corner John and/or his lawyer down in Texas and ask them what happened. ---
**Author:** ![Saintly\_Loser](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saintly_loser/32/4045_2.png) [@Saintly\_Loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saintly_Loser)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-no-longer-represent-you-in-this-divorce-case/698759/10 "2014-09-17T20:26:02Z")
> [@whc.03grady](#): > > Sitch: > John and Sally are married with two kids in Texas, but are in the very early stages of getting divorced. Sally, unbeknownst to the husband, has records of texts showing a high likelihood of adultery (or at the very least, planned adultery) which she gives to her lawyer. When everyone comes together for the first time–John, his lawyer, Sally, her lawyer–and John’s lawyer sees these records, he tells John he can no longer represent him. > > Why? John’s lawyer learns from the texts that the woman John is is having an affair with is his (the lawyer’s) wife? ---
**Author:** ![Saintly\_Loser](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saintly_loser/32/4045_2.png) [@Saintly\_Loser](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saintly_Loser)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-no-longer-represent-you-in-this-divorce-case/698759/11 "2014-09-17T20:28:19Z")
> [@whc.03grady](#): > > The potential partner is in Pennsylvania, so that probably isn’t it. > This is a real-life situation involving my sister and brother in-law (my wife’s sister is the wife). Names were changed. > My guesses: > The lawyer previously asked John if he’d been unfaithful, and John said he hadn’t. Then when John’s lawyer sees good evidence that his client has been dishonest, he says ‘forget it, buddy’. > Or, similarly, > The lawyer sees that he’s taken on a loser (or at least a rough uphill battle) and decides to bow out. > > But I don’t know if lawyers can do things like that. IANAL, OK? But no, lawyers can’t do that. They absolutely cannot drop a client just because they think it will be a tough case. AFAIK, they can’t even drop a client because the client isn’t paying the bills, at least not for quite a while. And I don’t think a matrimonial lawyer is going to be thrown much by the discovery that his client has been unfaithful. I don’t think the lawyer would even ask. ---
**Author:** ![Defensive\_Indifference](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/defensive_indifference/32/6502_2.png) [@Defensive\_Indifference](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Defensive_Indifference)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-no-longer-represent-you-in-this-divorce-case/698759/12 "2014-09-17T20:28:50Z")
Out of curiosity, how did Sally get a record of the texts? (IANAL, so I can’t answer your questions, sorry) ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-no-longer-represent-you-in-this-divorce-case/698759/13 "2014-09-17T20:29:32Z")
> [@whc.03grady](#): > > Of course I’m asking for speculation, reasoned speculation. The only way I could get at the answer for sure is to corner John and/or his lawyer down in Texas and ask them what happened. Here’s reasoned speculation: the attorney doesn’t need any reason to not accept a client, or to ‘fire’ a potential client. Like you said, it’s the first meeting. He just doesn’t like how it feels. That’s all he needs. It’s a free country. He likes Sally and doesn’t like John. ---
**Author:** ![whc.03grady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a6a055/32.png) [@whc.03grady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whc.03grady)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-no-longer-represent-you-in-this-divorce-case/698759/14 "2014-09-17T20:32:38Z")
> [@Bayard](#): > > Out of curiosity, how did Sally get a record of the texts? > > (IANAL, so I can’t answer your questions, sorry) Some sort of jointly-shared cloud storage thingaroo with their provider. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-no-longer-represent-you-in-this-divorce-case/698759/15 "2014-09-17T20:35:55Z")
> [@bup](#): > > Here’s reasoned speculation: the attorney doesn’t need any reason to not accept a client, or to ‘fire’ a potential client. Like you said, it’s the first meeting. Unclear. It’s the first meeting of all together, but that doesn’t mean it’s the first meeting of the lawyer with John. Once he agreed to take on the case, I don’t think it’s so easy to just drop it because he doesn’t “like” John or the situation, but IANA lawyer. ---
**Author:** ![engineer\_comp\_geek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/engineer_comp_geek/32/504_2.png) [@engineer\_comp\_geek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/engineer_comp_geek)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-no-longer-represent-you-in-this-divorce-case/698759/16 "2014-09-17T20:38:24Z")
**Moderator Action** > [@whc.03grady](#): > > Of course I’m asking for speculation, reasoned speculation. Since you are asking for speculation, and this seems to involve legal issues and opinions, let’s move it to our legal opinion and speculation forum. Moving thread from General Questions to In My Humble Opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-no-longer-represent-you-in-this-divorce-case/698759/17 "2014-09-17T20:41:09Z")
If I parsed it out right, John’s attorney will not represent him when he appears to be an adulterer. Could it be the lawyer is a self-professed good Christian that refuses to have business dealing with sinners, kind of like “good Christians” that will not associate with homosexuals? ---
**Author:** ![Defensive\_Indifference](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/defensive_indifference/32/6502_2.png) [@Defensive\_Indifference](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Defensive_Indifference)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-no-longer-represent-you-in-this-divorce-case/698759/18 "2014-09-17T20:41:52Z")
If John had lied to the lawyer previously (“Nope! Never been unfaithful!”), could the lawyer drop him when the lawyer discovered the truth? Or, could a lawyer have a “No Adulterers” policy, and drop the client when the lawyer discovered the adultery? Not that it would be good business, but maybe the lawyer has a personal moral objection to representing adulterers? ETA: yeah, what **Saint Cad** said. ---
**Author:** ![whc.03grady](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/a6a055/32.png) [@whc.03grady](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whc.03grady)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-no-longer-represent-you-in-this-divorce-case/698759/19 "2014-09-17T20:42:55Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > If I parsed it out right, John’s attorney will not represent him when he appears to be an adulterer. Could it be the lawyer is a self-professed good Christian that refuses to have business dealing with sinners, kind of like “good Christians” that will not associate with homosexuals? Possible I guess; it is Texas. ---
**Author:** ![etv78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d78d45/32.png) [@etv78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etv78)\ **Post date:** [September 17, 2014, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-no-longer-represent-you-in-this-divorce-case/698759/20 "2014-09-17T20:46:06Z")
Why can’t the lawyer disengage himself from someone who did not act in good faith? [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-can-no-longer-represent-you-in-this-divorce-case/698759.md?page=2)