Franks argument

In Boulting v Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians 1963 2 QB 606, LJ Upjohn said ‘the person entitled to the benefit of the rule may relax it, provided he is of full age and fully understands not only what he is doing but also what his legal rights are and that he is part surrendering them’.

Furthermore, it is adopted in the USA that if the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyers will be able to provide a competent and diligent representation to each affected client, then can represent two conflicting clients. Despite informed consent, the individuals must receive a fair and adequate service otherwise it evades adequate professional service (this is statutory) – the position in Scotland also.

To conclude, the client has the benefit of the rule and thus is entitled to relax the rule of conflict interests if the conflict is potential and if the client relies on the expertise of the lawyer or cannot gain access to other lawyers if the area, they may relax it.