Church schism dispute

On Sep 15, 7:55 am, "Robert M. Gary" <N70...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sep 14, 4:27 am, "Mark A" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > So long as this is a different matter than he previously handled for the
> > church, then the attorney is not "switching sides" and it is OK.
>
> The OP said the attorney first represented the church and now
> represents the minister. I'm having trouble understanding how that is
> "switching sides". Sounds like the same side.

It's not quite that simple.  First of all, matters dealing with internal church doctrine and ritual are usually things the secular law in USA will have nothing to say about whatsoever,* due to the 1st amendment prohibition on excessive government entanglement with religion.  From that point of view, the legal system cannot get involved in a congregation's decision to fire or hire a minister whose main job is to preach church doctrine and carry out the ritual practices of the church.

* Unless that doctrine and practice calls for actions that would seriously breach other, secular laws whether or not done for religious purposes.   Followers of a religion that preaches human sacrifice can be prevented from performing ritual murder and/or prosecuted criminally if they do so, and ditto for a religion that preaches polygamy or drug use (with the exception of certain Native American cults, for different reasons).

The law _may_ be invoked by one or the other party, if the dispute involves matters that impact on the secular rights and liabilities of the disputants, such as title to church property even when 2 different groups in the congregation each claim to be the true embodiment of the church as it existed before the schism, and characterizes the other group as the heretical one trying to break away.  The court has to decide which group gets to keep the building, if there is property owned by the congregation.  But they don't decide which one is the bearer of the "true faith" or whether a minister's preaching is doctrinally orthodox or heterodox.

Assuming, for sake of argument, that OP was talking about a situation where the law _could_ get involved, and where 2 opposing factions of the congregation each claimed the right to church property, it is conceivable that the lawyer who had previously represented the entire congregation may be placed in a possible conflict of interest situation if, after the split, he is called upon to represent one faction against another.  The better part of valor for the lawyer would usually be to have no part of representing either side, since he has "insider information" that might be used against the interests of a group that could claim to be the true successor of his former client; let each side in the dispute get a new lawyer.  But there are also plenty of imaginable scenarios where he is perfectly justified in continuing to represent one faction or the other, if he chooses.  Moreover, if his original representation was considered to be of the minister, not of the congregation, and if he desires to continue representing the minister even after part or all of the congregation turns against the minister, there is no conflict at all; his client remains that same individual person.

In general, putting aside the religious aspects of the situation, it is quite common for there to be confusion over who is the client, where a lawyer deals mainly with certain corporate bigwigs but where his actual client is the corporation.   This conundrum arises more often these days under various pieces of legislation that basically require a corporate lawyer to blow the whistle on insider wrongdoing when he finds out about it, a la Enron.  Plenty of continuing-legal-education providers are making big bucks offering seminars on the ins and outs and minutiae of these requirements, so I couldn't begin to explain it all here, but that's likely not what's going on in OP's case.

Bottom line is, if OP belongs to the opposite faction from the one which the minister and the lawyer currently are sticking with, then OP's faction needs to get their own lawyer, who, among other things, will be happy to advise them on whether there is any legal grounds to ask a court to force the original lawyer to cease representing the minister and withdraw from the dispute.  And without knowing all the facts it is impossible for us here to tell whether he would have to do so or not.

--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.

Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685      (fax) 410-740-4300