Final answer:
The query pertains to the legal stipulation that attorneys within the same firm cannot represent a client when there's a conflict of interest, reflected by the case Glasser v. U.S., which tied closely to the Sixth Amendment's Assistance of Counsel Clause.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question refers to an exception to the general rule that lawyers in a firm must avoid representing a client if any individual attorney within the firm has a conflict of interest. This is a legal and ethical consideration in the practice of law to ensure that a client's right to an attorney is protected, as established by the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment. In Glasser v. United States, the Supreme Court held that a conflict of interest arising from an attorney simultaneously representing co-defendants could violate this constitutional right.
Lawyers are typically prohibited from representing a client if doing so would constitute a conflict with another client's interests or with the interests of the lawyer or the firm. This is closely linked to the concept that legal counsel should be provided to the accused without any divided loyalties or interests. The only instance where such representation could occur is when the conflict of interest is adequately addressed and all affected parties give informed consent to the representation.