The advisory identifies three conditions that trigger a conflict requiring disclosure and informed written consent: when a witness's testimony directly implicates another client, when credibility contradictions affect material issues, or when full advocacy for one client would injure another. The critical threshold question—whether simultaneous representation is ethical at all—turns on what the witness will actually testify to. Attorneys must conduct that inquiry before taking on both clients.
For practitioners handling corporate litigation, this guidance matters because multi-client representation across investigations and overlapping matters has become standard practice. In-house counsel and outside firms regularly represent employees, companies, and witnesses in the same dispute. The advisory underscores that loyalty obligations cannot be satisfied through boilerplate consent forms. Lawyers must map potential testimony conflicts explicitly before committing to represent multiple stakeholders in the same matter.