Representing Both a Driver and Passengers: When It Becomes a Problem
Published .
The general concept
People injured in the same crash may appear to have one common goal: obtaining compensation from another driver or responsible party. Their legal interests can still diverge. A passenger may have a claim against the driver; the driver may dispute responsibility or argue that someone else caused the crash; and the available insurance may be insufficient to resolve every person’s losses. One lawyer cannot freely pursue a claim for one client against another client represented by that lawyer in the same lawsuit. Even before that happens, a significant risk that the lawyer’s judgment for one client will be limited by duties to another may create a conflict that must be addressed. A conflict can emerge after representation begins as evidence develops, an insurer disputes liability, or settlement negotiations require allocation among clients.
How Maryland applies it
Maryland’s conflict rule bars representation where clients are directly adverse or where there is a significant risk that duties to one client will materially limit work for another. A conflict may be waived only if the lawyer can reasonably provide competent and diligent representation to each client, the law permits it, the clients are not asserting claims against each other in the same proceeding, and each gives informed consent confirmed in writing. In Attorney Grievance Commission v. King, the Supreme Court of Maryland considered a lawyer who represented a driver and passenger injured in a crash caused by another vehicle. The insurer for the other driver denied liability, asserting that the driver-client was contributorily negligent. The Court held that the circumstances presented a significant conflict risk from the outset, which became more apparent after the denial; later, the lawyer filed the passenger’s claim against the driver while still representing the driver, creating direct adversity that could not be waived. The case also involved other professional failures, so its specific sanction does not mean every joint representation has the same outcome. In practice, a lawyer must revisit conflicts as facts change, explain material risks, obtain valid written consent when the conflict is consentable, and withdraw when continued representation would violate the rules. If one lawyer represents multiple clients in a settlement, Maryland’s aggregate-settlement rule requires informed written consent after disclosure of each person’s claims and the share each would receive. A passenger considering representation should ask whether the lawyer also represents the driver, which claims may be made against each person, how a limited policy will be allocated, and what happens if their interests diverge.
Related Maryland Cases and Authorities
Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct 19-301.7 and 19-301.8(g).; Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. King, 491 Md. 485, 340 A.3d 179 (2025).; Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. Kalarestaghi, 483 Md. 180, 291 A.3d 108 (2023).