Final answer:
Lawyers must avoid conflicts of interest when representing clients, especially when their representation is directly adverse to another client, requiring informed consent and the ability to provide competent representation to both parties. The Glasser and Strickland cases provide a constitutional and legal framework for understanding these obligations.
Step-by-step explanation:
A lawyer who wishes to undertake representation that is directly adverse to another client must strictly adhere to ethical rules and standards established by professional bodies and laws guiding the practice of law. The case of Glasser v. United States underscores the importance of avoiding conflicts of interest to protect the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment. Specifically, it establishes that simultaneous representation of codefendants with conflicting interests is a violation of constitutional rights.
In cases where a conflict of interest may arise, lawyers are typically required to obtain informed consent from all affected parties after full disclosure of the situation. Moreover, they must believe that they can competently represent the interests of each client without adversely affecting either. Should the representation of one client potentially harm another, the lawyer must refrain from engaging in the representation without such consent.
In situations where a lawyer has already undertaken representation, they must continue to adhere to an objective standard of reasonableness in their performance as established in Strickland v. Washington. Failure to do so, especially if it results in a prejudiced outcome for the client, may constitute ineffective assistance of counsel, which is grounds for legal relief.