Conflict of Interest
Conflicts of interest arise when a lawyer's duty to one client is or may be compromised by a duty to another, or by the lawyer's own interest. Candidates must distinguish (a) conflicts between current clients, (b) conflicts between a current and a former client, and (c) personal or commercial conflicts of the lawyer or firm. The core test is whether a reasonable observer, aware of the relevant facts, would perceive a material risk that duties are compromised. Perception matters as much as actual harm.
Managing conflicts requires a system: conflict checks at intake, information barriers (ethical screens) where permitted, informed consent in writing, and, where the conflict is non-consentable, declining or ceasing to act. Know that some conflicts cannot be cured by consent, particularly where the lawyer would be acting against a current client in a substantially related matter, or where confidential information cannot be protected.
Traps include assuming confidentiality alone cures a conflict; relying on a screen without the client's informed consent where consent is required; overlooking personal interests (e.g., a lawyer buying a client's asset); and failing to recognise a conflict arising from a former client's confidential information. Questions often test whether consent is available and whether it must be informed and written.
Worked example: a firm acts for A against B, then B asks the firm to act in an unrelated matter. A conflict check reveals the prior representation. The firm must assess whether B's confidential information is at risk and whether A consents; often the safe course is to decline. Rule of thumb: if you have to ask whether there is a conflict, treat it as one until cleared.