For three months, an attorney has represented a local manufacturing company in a contract dispute with the company's landlord. Last week, an employee of the manufacturing company asked the attorney to represent the employee in an action against the manufacturing company for failing to comply with wage and hour laws. The contract dispute and the wage and hour matter have no common issues of law or fact, and the attorney reasonably believes that he can competently represent the clients in the respective matters. Without discussing it with the manufacturing company, the attorney accepts and begins representation of the employee in the wage and hour matter.
Is the attorney subject to discipline?

(A) No, because the attorney reasonably believes that he can represent both the company and the employee competently in the respective matters.
(B) No, because there are no common issues of law or fact in the respective lawsuits.
(C) Yes, because the attorney did not terminate the representation of the company before agreeing to represent the employee.
(D) Yes, because the attorney’s representation of the employee is directly adverse to the manufacturing company.

Although the attorney reasonably believes that he can represent both the company and the employee competently in the respective matters, it is against the ethics because there is conflict of interest and it should be noted that the legal issue involves claim by one client against another who both requires the service of the attorney in the same litigation.

Representation of one of the client will no doubt be affected by the attorney's loyalty or personal and responsibility to the other client. Therefore the answer is Yes, because the attorney's representation of the employee is directly adverse to the manufacturing company