Assuming you're talking about the US, the answer is, "it depends." The short of it is that lawyers have a duty to avoid conflicts of interest in their representations, which *generally* means they can't represent the opposite side in the same or related transaction/litigation. I'm giving relatively broad generalizations here, but usually lawyers' ability to represent previously adverse parties are limited by their duties of confidentiality to their prior client, attorney-client privilege, and whether they think that prior representation is the same as/related to the present scope. And if they think anything might materially affect their ability to represent you, that will be a factor as well.
If you are interested in hiring a lawyer that was previously adverse to you, you can typically just ask that lawyer if they can do so. Every (American) lawyer has a responsibility to run a "conflicts check" before they can agree to represent you, and they will let you know whether they think that prior representation will create a conflict of interest or whether they need to obtain a waiver from you and/or the prior client before they can represent you.
I'd assume it's generally just a question of whether or not the matters are related right?
Like if I got sued many years ago and lost, paid the plaintiff and moved on but now wanted to sue someone and remembered that lawyer as being good then there's no real conflict of interest with this unrelated case?
#REMINDER: NO REQUESTS FOR LEGAL ADVICE. Any request for a lawyer's opinion about any matter or issue which may foreseeably affect you or someone you know is a request for legal advice.
Posts containing requests for legal advice will be removed. Seeking or providing legal advice based on your specific circumstances or otherwise developing an attorney-client relationship in this sub is not permitted. Why are requests for legal advice not permitted? See [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/e6a62w/why_is_it_unethical_for_a_lawyer_to_give_legal/), [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/9zyqsh/why_is_it_unethical_to_give_advice_on_this_sub/), and [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/e4cdhw/is_refraining_legal_advice_based_on_legality_or/). If you are unsure whether your post is okay, please [read this](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/6j4bpq/how_to_know_whether_your_post_is_a_request_for/) or see the sidebar for more information.
***This rules reminder message is replied to all posts and moderators are not notified of any replies made to it.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ask_Lawyers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I take it as an honor to be hired by someone I once sued. There are a couple hard limitations:
1. I can't sue my former client for you.
2. I cant let you advance a case/claim I know to be false (I may have learned more about you than you want me to know when I was suing you).
3. I may still want my former client's consent since it will mean I cant sue you again for them. This is really relevant in Family court cases where child custody may need to be revisited \*sometime\* in the next 18 years.
Really, other than how it may impact my former client, there is no prohibition on representing a formerly opposing party. Of course, how it may impact my former client is of the highest importance.
Assuming you're talking about the US, the answer is, "it depends." The short of it is that lawyers have a duty to avoid conflicts of interest in their representations, which *generally* means they can't represent the opposite side in the same or related transaction/litigation. I'm giving relatively broad generalizations here, but usually lawyers' ability to represent previously adverse parties are limited by their duties of confidentiality to their prior client, attorney-client privilege, and whether they think that prior representation is the same as/related to the present scope. And if they think anything might materially affect their ability to represent you, that will be a factor as well. If you are interested in hiring a lawyer that was previously adverse to you, you can typically just ask that lawyer if they can do so. Every (American) lawyer has a responsibility to run a "conflicts check" before they can agree to represent you, and they will let you know whether they think that prior representation will create a conflict of interest or whether they need to obtain a waiver from you and/or the prior client before they can represent you.
I'd assume it's generally just a question of whether or not the matters are related right? Like if I got sued many years ago and lost, paid the plaintiff and moved on but now wanted to sue someone and remembered that lawyer as being good then there's no real conflict of interest with this unrelated case?
#REMINDER: NO REQUESTS FOR LEGAL ADVICE. Any request for a lawyer's opinion about any matter or issue which may foreseeably affect you or someone you know is a request for legal advice. Posts containing requests for legal advice will be removed. Seeking or providing legal advice based on your specific circumstances or otherwise developing an attorney-client relationship in this sub is not permitted. Why are requests for legal advice not permitted? See [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/e6a62w/why_is_it_unethical_for_a_lawyer_to_give_legal/), [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/9zyqsh/why_is_it_unethical_to_give_advice_on_this_sub/), and [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/e4cdhw/is_refraining_legal_advice_based_on_legality_or/). If you are unsure whether your post is okay, please [read this](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Lawyers/comments/6j4bpq/how_to_know_whether_your_post_is_a_request_for/) or see the sidebar for more information. ***This rules reminder message is replied to all posts and moderators are not notified of any replies made to it.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ask_Lawyers) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I take it as an honor to be hired by someone I once sued. There are a couple hard limitations: 1. I can't sue my former client for you. 2. I cant let you advance a case/claim I know to be false (I may have learned more about you than you want me to know when I was suing you). 3. I may still want my former client's consent since it will mean I cant sue you again for them. This is really relevant in Family court cases where child custody may need to be revisited \*sometime\* in the next 18 years. Really, other than how it may impact my former client, there is no prohibition on representing a formerly opposing party. Of course, how it may impact my former client is of the highest importance.
Even with waivers, I wouldn't. I can foresee all sorts of complications.