Most clients assume their lawyer’s loyalty is the one thing they’re paying for. State bar disciplinary records suggest that assumption is more fragile than people realize. Every year, hundreds of attorneys are sanctioned for representing both spouses in a divorce, mediating with undisclosed bias, or maintaining hidden relationships with opposing counsel. The cases are not rare freak events; they’re a recurring category, and they tend to surface in family law more than anywhere else.
Dual representation is supposed to be impossible — until it isn’t
Every state bar prohibits an attorney from representing both parties in a contested matter. The rules tighten further in divorce, where ABA Model Rule 1.7 makes joint representation effectively unworkable. And yet the structure of “amicable” or “uncontested” divorces creates pressure to bend the rule. A couple who wants to save money is told one lawyer can “draft the paperwork” while only formally representing one of them. The unrepresented spouse signs documents they didn’t fully understand, often waiving rights to retirement assets, alimony, or property division. California State Bar disciplinary case 17-O-04132, the New York grievance against Daniel A. Brusca, and multiple Illinois ARDC matters all involve attorneys who crossed this line and were later disciplined or disbarred. The damage to the unrepresented spouse usually can’t be undone after the decree is final.
Mediator bias and undisclosed relationships
Family law mediators are required to be neutral and to disclose any relationship that could compromise neutrality. Compliance is uneven. Florida’s mediator qualifications board has handled multiple complaints involving mediators who shared firm space with one party’s prior counsel, had personal relationships with one spouse’s family, or had a financial interest in a party’s business. In one widely cited 2019 case in New Jersey, a mediator was found to have failed to disclose that opposing counsel was a longtime golfing partner. The settlement was set aside on appeal. Outside family law, similar issues surface in employment disputes and small-business splits, where the mediator’s “industry expertise” turns out to mean recurring referrals from one side.
Quiet collusion between opposing counsel
The most subtle version is also the hardest to catch: opposing counsel who know each other well and whose actual loyalty runs to maintaining their professional relationship. They settle quickly, push clients toward whatever resolution clears the docket, and avoid the kind of aggressive advocacy that a stranger lawyer would have brought. This isn’t usually disciplinable — there’s no rule against being friendly with opposing counsel — but it can produce settlements meaningfully worse than what either client deserved. Texas, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts disciplinary boards have all sanctioned attorneys for the harder version: side agreements with opposing counsel involving fee splits, referrals, or undisclosed financial arrangements.
The takeaway
Protect yourself by treating loyalty as something you have to verify, not assume. Ask whether your attorney has ever represented or worked with the other party or their counsel. Ask the mediator to disclose every prior relationship, not just current ones. If anything feels rushed, consult a second lawyer for a one-hour review before signing. The fee is trivial compared to the cost of a divorce decree you can’t reopen.
Leave a Reply