Which of the following constitutes a concurrent conflict of interest?

A concurrent conflict of interest arises when a lawyer's responsibilities to one client may materially limit their ability to represent another client, or when the interests of two clients are directly adverse to one another. In this context, representation that is directly adverse between clients clearly exemplifies this concept. When a lawyer represents clients with opposing interests in the same matter, the potential for divided loyalties and compromised representation becomes evident, leading to a situation that can prejudice the rights and interests of one or more clients.

The example of two clients with completely different interests, as mentioned in the first option, does not constitute a conflict of interest unless the representation of one negatively affects the ability to represent the other. Similarly, a contingency fee agreement refers primarily to the method of payment and does not inherently create a conflict of interest unless it ties the lawyer’s financial interests to opposing parties. Lastly, a former client seeking a second opinion on a matter does not necessarily present a concurrent conflict as long as the new representation respects the confidentiality and loyalty owed to the former client.

Thus, the scenario illustrating direct adversity between clients is the definitive illustration of a concurrent conflict of interest.