Ethics Opinion 248
澳博app是否可以代表多名原告，声称他们在选择其他人寻求职位时受到就业歧视
澳博app不一定不能代表同一职位的多名候选人，这些候选人声称对另一名候选人的选择受到非法歧视, provided that, 在协商该代理的其他严重风险后, 客户同意对代理范围的任何必要限制以及未来可能需要单独代理的情况, 澳博app将能够热情地代表每一位客户.
Applicable Rules
- Rule 1.2 (Scope of Representation)
- Rule 1.3 (Diligence and Zeal)
- Rule 1.7 (Conflict of Interest: General Rule)
Inquiry
Lawyer has been approached by two people who applied for, but did not get, 一份工作，并且认为这个选择是基于被禁止的歧视性做法. In asking whether he can represent both plaintiffs, 澳博app说，要确立责任，他只需要证明每个原告都比被选中的人更有资格;1 he does not address the subject of relief.
Discussion
The principal standard is Rule 1.7, which provides in relevant part:
(a)澳博app不得就某一事项中所采取的立场与同一澳博app就该立场所代理的另一客户在同一事项中已采取或将采取的立场相反的立场代表客户.
(b) Except as permitted by paragraph (c) below, 有下列情形之一的，澳博app不得代理委托人:
(1)该客户在该事项中所采取的立场与另一客户在同一事项中所采取或将采取的立场相反;
(2)该等代理将受到或可能受到另一客户代理的不利影响;
(3)另一客户的代理将受到或合理地可能受到另一客户代理的不利影响;
(4)澳博app代表委托人作出的专业判断将受到或合理可能受到澳博app对第三方的责任或利益或澳博app自身财务状况的不利影响, business, property, or personal interests.
Rule 1.7(c) permits representation under Rule 1.7(b) if:
(1) each potentially affected client provides consent to such representation after full disclosure of the existence and nature of the possible conflict and the possible adverse consequences of such representation; and
(2)澳博app能够遵守与该等代理有关的所有其他适用规则.
“充分披露”要求“向客户详细解释风险和不利因素”.” In re James, 452 A.2d 163, 167 (D.C. App. 1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1038 (1983). Comment [12] to Rule 1.7 addresses the disclosure needed for consent:
充分披露要求披露当事人及其在各自职位上的利益，以使每个潜在客户能够就是否继续进行预期的代理作出充分知情的决定. If a lawyer’s obligation to one or another client . . . 禁止向所有受影响的各方充分披露, 仅凭这一事实就排除了进行有关陈述的可能性. 充分披露还要求客户了解可能的额外费用, inconvenience, 如果以后出现实际的立场冲突，澳博app被要求终止代理，可能会产生其他不利因素.
In addition, Rule 1.2(c) provides:
As the Court of Appeals recently explained, “Rule 1.7(a)规定绝对禁止双重或多重代理，当澳博app将代表在同一事件中处于不利地位的客户时.’ Client consent cannot cure such a conflict.” Griva v. Davison, No. 92-CV-992 (D.C. Ct. App. Feb. 10, 1994), 122 Wash. D.L. Rep. 441, pet. reh. pending.
However, Rule 1.7(b)概述了并非绝对禁止双重代表的另一类案件. Comment [4] to Rule 1.7 elaborates, stating that under paragraph (b), 如果澳博app不被要求在案件的“责任阶段”为两个客户采取不利立场, but might in the damages phase, 澳博app可以同意在责任阶段代表双方，然后在损害赔偿阶段代表一方或另一方.3 However, 评论[5]警告说，澳博app继续代表任何一方的能力可能会受到限制，因为澳博app了解到规则1所保护的机密或秘密.(六)未经涉及保密或者秘密的当事人同意的.
调查提出的问题与委员会在第2号意见中处理的问题类似. 131, concerning the prior Disciplinary Rules. 委员会的结论是，在针对联邦机构的歧视诉讼中代表原告群体的公司，不能在不相关的行政诉讼中代表该机构的雇员申诉者，以删除该雇员档案中的某些绩效评估, 其中一些是由一位主管准备的，他是另一个行动的班级成员. 裁定该陈述构成违反DR 5-105的冲突, and could not be waived, 委员会的结论是，成功地代表员工将等于成功地攻击主管/班级成员的判断, 而这样的裁决可以用来否定监管者的救济. 委员会的理由之一是“很有可能代表雇员申诉者, the firm might (indeed, should) be reluctant to do what is necessary to succeed; that is, attack the judgment and actions of one of its clients, the unnamed class member.进一步的担忧是“一个非常现实的危险，即调查公司可能会在代表评估官员在集体诉讼中为她提供个人救济的过程中泄露雇员申诉者的机密。. . . . 尽管申诉人可以同意披露机密信息, the grievant would have little incentive to do so.”4
Comment [4] to Rule 1.第7条将诉讼程序明确分为责任阶段和损害赔偿阶段，这两个阶段可能发生，也可能不发生. 虽然这种划分在过去的就业歧视案件中很常见, 最近对《澳博app》的修正允许陪审团审判和补偿性损害赔偿，这创造了一种前景，即一方或另一方可能受益于并有权坚持对所有问题进行统一审判, covering liability and relief.
询盘方没有考虑到客户的利益可能不利于救济. For example, the defendant might argue that, 因为只有一个空缺，原告中只有一个可以被选中, 即使存在违法行为，也只有一个原告有权获得工作或获得欠薪和损害赔偿. With or without bifurcation, moreover, 在和解谈判的任何阶段都可能出现救济问题, e.g., 关于报酬或职位的邀请.
在可能对每一个原告都有利的情况下，澳博app不能代表两个原告，以表明他或她会被选中，而不是另一个原告. Moreover, there is a substantial likelihood that, when issues requiring separate representation arise, 澳博app将获得关于受规则1保护的每个客户的信息.6. 因此，很难看出澳博app如何得出一个客户的代理不会“可能受到”另一个客户的代理的不利影响的结论, 或者澳博app代表一个客户的专业判断可能不会“受到澳博app对……的责任的不利影响” . . . a third party,” i.e., the other client. 澳博app也很有可能最终不得不在同一件事上为两个客户采取“不利立场”。e.g., as to their relative qualifications). It is difficult to expect that, 是否存在任何可能取消资格的条件，并已了解, 客户将提供知情同意，允许同一名澳博app代表他们的分歧, competing interests as to relief. 另一种选择可能是澳博app和客户将代理的目标限制为确定责任, as permitted by Rule 1.2(c)，但这是否经常可行是有问题的.
满足第1条规定的协商或同意的要求.2(c) or 1.7(c), 澳博app必须解释客户利益可能发生冲突的各种方式, 如果他们同意不采取相互冲突的立场，他们各自的要求可能会受到阻碍, 如果其中一方或双方后来都需要聘请新的澳博app，可能会增加成本和干扰, 如果考虑或有费用，关于补偿的复杂性, etc. We note, moreover, that in Griva, supra, the Court of Appeals recently rejected a contention that, as a matter of law, 当发生实际冲突时，不能撤销对双重代理的同意.
It is, of course, possible that Lawyer could represent both clients without having to take antagonistic positions: Lawyer’s evident premise of bifurcated proceedings might prove correct; the plaintiffs might agree not to attack each other in the liability phase; both plaintiffs might lose in the liability phase; if they win, 为了避免冲突，他们可能同意在有限的目标下共同代表, 或单独代表一方或双方(假设有关费用的复杂问题可以解决), etc. Accordingly, we are not prepared to say that Rule 1.7 precludes such representation.
即使在澳博app全面披露后客户对代理表示有意义的同意, 澳博app仍然必须“遵守与此类代理有关的所有其他适用规则”. Rule 1.7(c)(2). As explained in Comment [15] to Rule 1.7,
披露和同意代理并不减少澳博app遵守其他职业行为规则的义务. For example, even if a client provides informed and uncoerced consent, 澳博app不能履行勤勉义务的，不得承接或者继续代理 . . . provided in [Rule 1.3].
Rule 1.第3(a)条规定:“澳博app应在法律范围内热心和勤勉地代表委托人.”5 这种热心代表的义务是不能妥协的，这是公认的, even with the consent of the client. Indeed, 本委员会多次得出结论，当事一方的代理——即使得到同意——在“澳博app本人”的情况下是不适当的 . . . conclude[s] that his ability zealously to represent th[at] . . . party (as required by Rule 1.3) would be compromised” by a conflict of interest. Legal Ethics Comm. of the D.C. Bar Op. No. 226 (1992).6 Thus, Lawyer will have to determine whether, 客户同意的代理范围见第6条, 他对他们的义务将限制他热情而勤奋地代表他们每一个人的能力.
The Committee has doubts about whether a client, 如果被充分告知澳博app代理可能受到的限制, would consent to such joint representation. 委员会还关切的是，获得适当消息的委托人是否会同意限制代理的范围，使澳博app能够合理地断定他能够履行热心代理的义务. However, 委员会不认为应完全排除这种代表的可能性. But cf. Rule 1.7评论16(“最好在陈述开始前避免可能导致冲突的陈述, 澳博app在考虑是否应在一开始就披露信息并征得当事人同意时，应牢记这一事实.”) Thus, Lawyer can proceed, 但只有在所有客户被充分告知可能的风险后，他们才会知情同意, consequences, and costs of joint representation, 包括每个客户在诉讼的后期阶段可能需要新澳博app的风险, 即使客户同意，法院也可能取消澳博app的资格,7 而且前提是他认为他可以为每个客户提供热心的代理.
我们注意到，在各种情况下都可能出现同样的问题. 虽然具体问题可能因管辖法律而异, the nature of the claims, and the relief sought, 知情同意的需要和热心代表的责任将永远存在. 是否同意共同代表将视具体情况而定.
Inquiry No. 93-1-2
Adopted June 21, 1994
1. 在此前提下，我们不处理澳博app是否正确的法律问题.
2. 《澳博app下载网》的术语部分将“同意”定义为“非强制同意拟议的行动方案”, 在就有关事项与澳博app协商后,，并将“咨询”定义为“合理充分的信息沟通，使客户能够理解所讨论事项的重要性。.”
3. Comment [4] states in part:
(a)款的绝对禁止只适用于要求澳博app在同一事项上支持不利立场的情况. 正是由于这个原因，(a)段所指的逆境是与某一事项中“已采取或将采取的立场”有关，而不是与该事项或整个陈述有关的逆境. 这种做法的目的是减少在其他当事人有共同利益的陈述中的诉讼费用, 对其他问题的非不利(或偶然或可能不利)立场. If, for example, 在案件的责任阶段，不要求澳博app在为两个客户提供点代理时采取不利立场, 进行这种有限的代表是允许的. Then after completion of the liability phase, 及在符合本条第(c)段的规定后, 澳博app可以在案件的损害赔偿阶段代表任何一方, even though the other, represented by separate counsel as to damages, might have an adverse position as to that phase of the case.
4. 由于DR 5-105和规则1之间存在显著的语言差异，该意见并非决定性的.7. D.C. Rule 4 1.7 differs substantially from ABA Model Rule 1.7, 它本身就是对DR 5-105和5-101(关于“不当行为的表现”)的实质性修订。. However, 虽然修订的目的是促进更广泛的多重代表性, the changes were intended largely to clarify, to eliminate ambiguity, and to apply objective rather than subjective standards, 而不必改变旧规则下案件的结果. Proposed Rules of Prof. Conduct & Related Comments as recommended by the D.C. Bar Bd. of Governors (Nov. 19, 1986) at 66-69 (“Yellow Book”); see Griva v. Davison, supra. In particular, Rule 1.第7条并没有明确贯彻DR 5-105的要求，即“明显”澳博app可以为双方当事人提供“充分的代理”. However, Rule 1.第7(c)(2)条也指出，只有在澳博app“能够遵守所有其他适用规则”的情况下才允许代理.” See Yellow Book, id.
5. Rule 1.3 states more fully:
(a)澳博app应在法律范围内热心和勤勉地代表委托人
(b) A lawyer shall not intentionally:
(一)未通过法律和纪律规则允许的合理可行的手段寻求客户的合法目标, or
(2)在业务关系中对委托人造成偏见或损害.
6. See also D.C. Bar Op. No. 210(1990)(“委员会以前认识到，提供充分代表的明显能力, which pursuant to DR 7-101 [the predecessor to Rule 1.(3)必须热心，是一项独立的要求，即使提供了同意也必须满足.”); D.C. Bar Op. No. 163 (1986) (same); D.C. Bar Op. No. 49 (1978) (same).
7. 确保有充分的咨询和同意, 同意书宜以书面形式备存. Cf., e.g., Doyle & Blumenthal, 被告视角:就业诉讼中多方当事人代理与咨询的伦理考量, 10 Labor Law. 19, 38-39 (1994) (same consent).
