.webp)
.png)
As we have seen many times throughout our blog, parties fight over a diverse array of things in the context of divorce litigation – custody, marital property, property classification status, parenting time, spousal maintenance or alimony, and so forth. In addition to these relatively substantive things, parties also fight over procedural matters as well. This is what occurred in the recent case of Atkins v. Wheeler (2025).
In this case, the parties fought over whether the wife’s selected counsel should have been allowed to represent her. This was essentially a “conflict of interest” issue, as the husband claimed that the attorney was prevented from representing the wife under Maryland’s current law on conflict of interest.
Factual Overview
The divorce petition was initiated in 2022 in Anne Arundel County. The wife, who originally hailed from Annapolis, hired an attorney from the same law firm which employed an attorney who previously worked with the parties while they were still married. In 2019, the couple hired an attorney to assist with a property damage case; the couple claimed that stormwater runoff from a nearby property had caused damage to their property. Importantly, the attorney hired by the wife in the divorce litigation wasn’t the same person, he just worked at the same firm. Also, the two cases – the divorce and the property damage case – were clearly quite dissimilar from each other.
Before the case went to trial, the husband objected to the wife’s choice of counsel. He argued that the wife was actually barred from hiring this attorney because he worked for the same firm as the couple’s previous attorney. The husband’s argument was rejected and the wife was able to retain her counsel.
Ruling & Discussion
Maryland law does in fact have a “conflict of interest” rule which may prevent someone from hiring a particular attorney in certain situations. Essentially, this rule states that a person may not hire an attorney who formerly represented the opposing party in that person’s case, unless the opposing party (i.e. the former client) provides express consent in writing. The husband invoked this rule when attempting to block the wife’s counsel.
The problem with the husband’s argument was that, in this situation, the wife didn’t even hire the same individual who represented the couple during its stormwater runoff property damage case; the two attorneys were merely from the same firm, and there was no indication that the wife’s attorney in the divorce case had accessed information which would’ve prejudiced the husband. On its face, Maryland’s rule pertaining to conflict of interest (in the context of attorney representation) applies specifically to the same individual being hired twice, not to two individuals who merely work together as colleagues. Nevertheless, the husband’s argument might have succeeded if he had been able to demonstrate clearly that the wife’s counsel would have gained access (or already had gained access) to information such that the husband would’ve been unfairly disadvantaged. This might have been the case if, for example, the wife had hired someone from the same firm as an attorney who previously represented the husband in a prior divorce case. In that hypothetical scenario, we can see how the newly hired attorney might come across information which could adversely affect the husband’s case.
As mentioned, parties fight over just about anything in the context of divorce, even things which appear to be relatively insignificant. In this situation, the husband simply wanted to quarrel over something, even if that something wasn’t meaningful at all. With better counsel of his own, the husband might have avoided this type of courtroom embarrassment.
Contact the Murphy Law Firm for More Information
If readers want to learn more about conflict of interest, attorney ethics, other procedural issues in divorce litigation, or any other family law matter, contact one of the attorneys at the Murphy Law Firm today by calling 240-219-5243.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
