What constitutes a “conflict of interest” under MRPC Rule 1.7?

Under MRPC Rule 1.7, a "conflict of interest" specifically arises when the representation of one client may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a former client, or a third person, or by the lawyer's own interests. This means that if the representation of one client significantly affects or has the potential to negatively influence another client's position or interests, it constitutes a conflict of interest.

This concept is rooted in the necessity of a lawyer maintaining undivided loyalty and the duty to act in the best interests of each client. If the representation of one client could harm or conflict with another client's interests, it presents a significant ethical issue for the attorney. This rule is designed to promote transparency and avoid any situation where a lawyer's judgment might be compromised due to divided loyalties.

In contrast, the other choices do not capture the essence of what constitutes a conflict of interest. For instance, the first option incorrectly implies that alignment of interests equates to a conflict, while the last two options either limit the definition to prior relationships or financial interests, omitting the broader implications of how distinct clients' interests can relate to one another in the course of representation. Thus, the clarity provided by the second choice aligns closely with