Skip to the main content.
Free Case Review




green lock security thumb

green lock security thumb



green lock security thumb

green lock security thumb



5 min read

Implicit Consent in Legal Representation: Analyzing Conflicts of Interest

legal document on wooden table being stamped by person in a business suit

In the realm of legal practice, the vigilant application of rules of professional conduct is of paramount importance, particularly when it comes to navigating the delicate terrain of conflict of interest. Recently, a thought-provoking case reached the Supreme Court of Hawai'i, heralding a nuanced examination of these rules.

At the heart of this case was a wrongful death suit that commanded the attention of the court. The crux of the matter revolved around the potential disqualification of an attorney charged with representing the insured, but engaged by an insurer. The legal case involved Kawika Franco as the plaintiff-appellant, and Sabio Reinhardt and Josiah Okudara as the defendant-appellees.

This intriguing court opinion served as an illuminating guidepost, shedding light on the delicate intricacies of conflicts of interest within the legal profession. Attorneys, as guardians of justice, are bound by an adherence to professional ethics and conduct. Thus, the court assessed whether the attorney's affiliation with the insurer blurred their ability to dispense impartial guidance or risked compromising the integrity of the entire legal process.

Supreme Court's Decision to Vacate and Remand the Case

According to the Supreme Court's ruling, the retained counsel for the insurer was found to be not disqualified from representing the insured. The court also determined that any errors made in denying the plaintiffs' motion to disqualify the counsel were considered harmless. It was concluded that there was no conflict of interest on the counsel's part.

Furthermore, the court found that the counsel did not violate the Rules of Professional Conduct when filing a motion to set aside the judgment without consulting the insured beforehand. The court considered this action as implicitly authorized under the Rules and aligned with the insurer's duty of good faith.

The court recognized that the circumstances of the case were extraordinary, justifying the need for relief from the judgment. As a result, the Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the Intermediate Court of Appeals and upheld the judgment of the Circuit Court. Subsequently, the case was remanded for further proceedings.

The Appeal and Vacating of the Declaratory Judgment by the ICA

The Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) made a significant decision to vacate a declaratory judgment on a wrongful death lawsuit brought by the Francos against Sabio Reinhardt. It began when Reinhardt was involved in a tragic truck accident that claimed the life of passenger Tiare Franco. National Interstate Insurance Company (NIIC) took on the responsibility of retaining counsel to represent Reinhardt. However, NIIC filed a declaratory action asserting that they had no obligation to defend or indemnify Reinhardt. The case delved into the circuit court's eventual ruling to grant NIIC's motion for summary judgment. This ruling proved to be consequential, leading Reinhardt's lawyer to withdraw from the case.

The case delved into the appeal filed by the Francos in response to the circuit court's ruling. This ruling ultimately led to the Intermediate Court of Appeals (ICA) vacating the declaratory judgment and remanding the case for further proceedings. An important aspect discussed in the case revolves around the subsequent jury trial that took place. Remarkably, Reinhardt, the party in question, did not attend this trial. As it turned out, the jury reached a decision, awarding the Francos a substantial multi-million dollar verdict.

Reinhardt took action by filing a motion to set aside the jury verdict. This motion was met with opposition from the Francos, who in turn moved to disqualify Reinhardt's legal representation. The court denied the Francos' motion to disqualify Reinhardt's counsel and granted Reinhardt's motion to set aside the jury verdict. The case illustrates the importance of understanding and adhering to the rules of professional conduct, as they play a critical role in shaping the outcomes and perceptions of legal disputes.

Mitigating Conflicts of Interest Through Informed Consent

A central issue discussed in this case revolves around the question of whether an attorney retained by an insurer to represent the insured should be disqualified from doing so. Attorneys are bound by a duty to provide unbiased and effective representation for their clients, but what happens when competing interests and obligations threaten to compromise this fundamental responsibility? This raises important questions about impartiality, loyalty, and the delicate balance attorneys must strike in serving multiple parties involved in a legal matter.

Within this context, the interpretation provided by the ICA regarding the Finley case sheds light on the crucial role of informed consent in attorney-client relationships within the realm of insurance representation. The ICA asserts that without explicit consent from the insured, legal counsel lacks the authority to act on their behalf. This interpretation underscores the significance of clients fully understanding and providing clear authorization for their attorneys to represent them, ensuring that they play an active role in the decision-making process.

A thought-provoking argument presented in this case builds upon the Finley decision by suggesting that the absence of a formal rejection of legal representation may be interpreted as implied consent. This perspective highlights the intricate dynamics at play when establishing the authority of legal counsel and emphasizes the need for attorneys to engage in open and transparent communication with their clients. By doing so, attorneys can ascertain their clients' wishes and avoid any misunderstandings or inadvertent breaches of professional conduct.

The Argument for Implicit Consent: Analyzing Reinhardt's Consent in Relation to NIIC's Communication

In the case we are examining, we explore the rules that legal professionals must follow when it comes to conflicts of interest. Conflicts of interest can have a significant impact on the integrity and professionalism of lawyers. To shed light on this matter, we turn to the Hawai'i Rules of Professional Conduct (HRPC) and specifically focus on Rule 1.7, which specifically addresses conflicts of interest.

Simply put, a conflict of interest occurs when an attorney's personal or financial interests interfere with their ability to represent their client effectively. In this case, we analyze whether the client, Reinhardt, provided informed consent despite the presence of a potential conflict of interest.

Under HRPC Rule 1.7, if a conflict of interest arises, the client must be fully informed about the situation and its potential consequences. This ensures that the client understands the risks involved and can make an educated decision about whether to proceed with legal representation.

The argument presented in the case suggests that Reinhardt did not reject the offer of counsel from NIIC (New International Insurance Corporation). It is contended that NIIC's communication to Reinhardt contained enough information for him to understand the nature of the representation being offered, including any potential conflicts of interest.

Another rule that applies in this case is HRPC Rule 1.8, which prohibits attorneys from receiving compensation for representing a client from anyone other than the client, unless the client has given their consent after thorough consultation. This rule is in place to ensure that lawyers maintain their loyalty exclusively to their clients and are not influenced by outside parties.

The argument maintains that NIIC's letter to Reinhardt fulfilled the requirements for disclosure and consultation. Therefore, Reinhardt's failure to take action can be seen as an implicit form of consent. It is important to recognize that an attorney's duty is to advocate diligently for the client's interests. In this context, Reinhardt's attorney made the correct decision by filing the Rule 60(b) motion. This motion aligns with HRPC Rule 1.2(a), which allows lawyers to take actions that are implicitly authorized.

Lastly, the case discusses HRCP Rule 60(b), which allows for relief from a judgment that may be deemed erroneous or unjust. The argument posits that the extraordinary circumstances presented in this case warrant relief through the motion filed by Reinhardt's counsel. This motion was timely, as required by Rule 60(b), and highlights the errors that occurred during the trial as additional grounds for granting relief. The circuit court's decision to deny the motion to disqualify Reinhardt's attorney is deemed correct, emphasizing that filing the motion to set aside the verdict did not violate the HRPC.