Payment by Carla’s mother
Carla is the client; her mother does not acquire control of the representation by paying the fees. ABA Rule 1.8(f) permits third-party payment only with the client’s informed consent, protection of professional independence, and protection of confidential information. California Rule 1.8.6 generally requires the client’s informed written consent, together with the independence and confidentiality safeguards, subject to its stated exceptions.
A condition requiring disclosure of all Carla’s statements is incompatible with those protections unless Carla gives the necessary informed authorization and the arrangement otherwise remains proper. A valid fee agreement does not establish that Carla authorized every disclosure to her mother. Larry must clarify the relationship, refuse improper interference, and preserve Carla’s confidences. Information can be professionally confidential even when it would not qualify for the evidentiary attorney-client privilege.
Whether Carla remained a client
The divorce ended, and Larry sent a disengagement letter. That supports termination of the original matter, but the parties’ subsequent conduct is more important than an internal label. Larry kept the file open because further issues were expected, remained available, and actually advised Carla about unpaid taxes, support, and visitation. A lawyer-client relationship can arise by conduct and need not involve a new fee or formal retainer.
These facts strongly support continuing or renewed representation. The letter is evidence to consider, not a device allowing Larry to provide legal services while treating Carla as a stranger for conflict purposes.
Sexual relationship and personal conflicts
Both systems restrict sexual relations with a current client, with an exception for a consensual sexual relationship existing when the lawyer-client relationship began. If the representation continued through the divorce and its related issues, the later sexual relationship does not fall within that preexisting-relationship exception. Consensual dating by itself does not cure the prohibition.
If there was a genuine break in representation and dating began before a distinct new engagement, Larry has a stronger exception argument. The ongoing legal dependence and expected follow-up weaken that characterization. Even where the categorical exception applies, the lawyer must address whether romantic interests create a significant risk of materially limiting professional judgment under the conflict rules. Consent cannot cure a conflict where competent and diligent representation cannot reasonably be provided.
Florist partnership
Entering a business partnership with a client requires more than an agreement both parties like. Under ABA Rule 1.8(a) and California Rule 1.8.1, the terms must be fair and reasonable and fully disclosed in understandable writing. The client must receive written advice concerning independent legal counsel and a reasonable opportunity to obtain that advice. The required informed consent must address the essential terms and the lawyer’s role, including whether the lawyer represents the client in the transaction, and must satisfy the applicable signed-writing requirements.
Larry drafted the documents, supplied capital, and would receive half the profits while Carla supplied services. That division may or may not be fair depending on value and risk; the bare fraction is not proof either way. More clearly, suggesting that Carla ask her mother to look over the documents does not establish advice to seek independent legal counsel. No facts show the mother is qualified counsel or that the required written advice and informed consent occurred.
“I trust you” and a signature on partnership documents are not substitutes for disclosure of Larry’s conflicting financial interest and the mandatory safeguards. Their romantic involvement can magnify the risk that Carla will rely on him rather than obtain independent advice. Larry therefore faces a strong business-transaction violation, with additional personal-interest conflict concerns. Any genuine former-client status would narrow some current-client rules, but the actual ongoing advice makes that defense uncertain and does not eliminate continuing confidentiality duties.