California's Rule 1.7(c) makes lawyers disclose relationships even when there is no conflict. Two proposals would cut it back.

A California lawyer may have to disclose a relationship that creates no conflict requiring client consent. Rule 1.7(c) requires that disclosure when the lawyer, or another lawyer in the firm, has a legal, business, financial, professional or personal relationship with a party or witness in the same matter.

It also applies when opposing counsel is the lawyer's spouse, parent, child or sibling, lives with the lawyer, is a client of the lawyer or the lawyer's firm, or has an intimate personal relationship with the lawyer. The State Bar of California is considering two alternatives that would narrow or remove those requirements.

COPRAC put two alternatives out for comment

The State Bar's Standing Committee on Professional Responsibility and Conduct, known as COPRAC, approved both proposals at its September 11, 2026 meeting. The proposals concern paragraph (c) of Rule 1.7, after the California Lawyers Association Ethics Committee asked COPRAC to review the rule.

The State Bar released both proposals for a 45-day public comment period. Comments close November 3, 2026, at 11:59 p.m. They may be submitted through the State Bar's online comment form or by email to [email protected]. Submitted comments become part of the public record.

The State Bar's proposal pages do not summarize commenter positions. They also do not report a dissent or vote count. No organized for or against split is on the public record yet. The two alternatives are what is on the table while the comment window remains open.

Nothing changes the current rule yet. Rule 1.7(c) stays in force unless a proposal survives public comment, goes to the State Bar's Board of Trustees, and then reaches the California Supreme Court.

Proposal 1 deletes the disclosure paragraph

Proposal 1 deletes Rule 1.7(c) in its entirety. That removes both paragraph (c)(1), covering relationships with a party or witness, and paragraph (c)(2), covering specified relationships with opposing counsel.

It also deletes the comment explaining paragraph (c), renumbers the remaining provisions, removes a cross-reference to paragraph (c) in the comments, and makes clarifying edits to a later comment.

The proposal adds a new Comment [11] addressing close family ties. It says that when lawyers representing different clients in the same or substantially related matters are closely related by blood or marriage, there may be a significant risk that client confidences will be revealed and that the family relationship will interfere with the lawyers' loyalty and independent professional judgment.

Under that comment, each client is entitled to know of the relationship before the lawyer agrees to the representation. A lawyer related to another lawyer, such as a parent, child, sibling or spouse, ordinarily may not represent a client in a matter where the other lawyer represents another party unless each client gives informed written consent.

The comment also says the disqualification arising from a close family relationship is personal. It ordinarily is not imputed to members of the firms where the lawyers work, citing Rule 1.10(a)(1).

On its face, Proposal 1 relies on paragraph (b) when a relationship creates a significant risk requiring informed written consent. It separately addresses close family relationships in the new comment.

Proposal 2 removes three words

Proposal 2 is narrower. It deletes only the words “or responsibility to” from paragraph (c)(1). The rest of Rule 1.7 and its comments remain unchanged.

A written disclosure would still be required for a lawyer's legal, business, financial, professional or personal relationship with a party or witness. The phrase “responsibility to” would no longer create a disclosure category.

Paragraph (c)(2) would remain intact. A firm would still have to address the listed relationships involving opposing counsel, including a spouse, parent, child or sibling relationship, cohabitation, a firm client relationship, or an intimate personal relationship.

For firms that built conflict-check intake questions around the existing wording, Proposal 2 changes one phrase rather than the structure of the rule.

The redlines show the full reach of Proposal 1

Before publication, the desk compared the redline comparison PDFs for both proposals against the current rule text, line by line.

That review showed that Proposal 2 really is a three-word deletion: “or responsibility to.” It also showed that Proposal 1's deletion of paragraph (c) removes the second category, paragraph (c)(2), as well as the first.

A reader who looks only at a headline summary saying Proposal 1 “deletes paragraph (c)” could miss that the change reaches relationships involving opposing counsel. For example, the current stand-alone disclosure duty would no longer apply under Rule 1.7 to another lawyer in the firm having a business or personal relationship with a witness, opposing counsel being a client of the firm, or opposing counsel living with the lawyer.

Under Proposal 1, a real conflict would still be handled under paragraphs (a) and (b), including informed written consent when paragraph (b) requires it. Close family ties between opposing lawyers would be addressed in Comment [11], with informed written consent from each client and personal, rather than firm-wide, disqualification.

The current disclosure duty remains in place

Until a change is adopted, Rule 1.7(c) requires written disclosure even when there is no significant risk requiring compliance with paragraph (b).

Paragraph (b) already covers circumstances presenting a significant risk that the lawyer's representation will be materially limited by responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person, or by the lawyer's own interests. Informed written consent is required when that risk is present.

The current comment to paragraph (c) makes the distinction directly. It says paragraph (c) requires written disclosure of the specified relationships even when there is no significant risk of material limitation. If the circumstances do present that risk, informed written consent remains required under paragraph (b).

For a California firm, paragraph (c) remains part of the rule while the proposals are pending.

Archivar is an operating system for a law firm that answers every call 24/7 in English and Spanish, runs intake, manages matters and remembers everything the firm does. Intake is where the names of parties and witnesses first reach a firm, and the matter record is where the firm keeps what it disclosed and when.

A comment letter is the way to be on the record

The text itself supplies the difference between the two alternatives.

Proposal 1 removes the entire disclosure paragraph and adds a focused comment on close family ties. Proposal 2 preserves the disclosure system and removes only the “responsibility to” category from paragraph (c)(1).

A lawyer or firm that wants its position considered must submit a comment by November 3, 2026, at 11:59 p.m. The submission will be public.

Comments close November 3, 2026, with Proposal 1 deleting paragraph (c) and Proposal 2 deleting only “or responsibility to.”