Final answer:
The exception to dual representation under MRPC 1.7(b) is when the client gives informed consent, which must be confirmed in writing. Minors cannot consent for themselves, but their parents or guardians can, and all such consents must be fully informed and documented.
Step-by-step explanation:
The exception to dual representation as per MRPC 1.7(b) is when the client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing. This rule addresses the situation where a lawyer is representing two clients whose interests may be at odds. The rule allows for dual representation if the clients are aware of the potential conflict and agree to proceed with the same lawyer. It is critical that this consent is informed, meaning the clients fully understand the implications of the dual representation, and it must be confirmed in writing to provide a clear record of the consent.
In cases involving minors, such as children who cannot provide informed consent for themselves because they are not legally competent, parents or guardians can provide consent on their behalf. However, this must also conform to the requirements of informed consent and be documented in written form.
Furthermore, important legal rights such as the right to an attorney and the right to remain silent, as established by Glasser v. United States and the Miranda rights, underscore the significance of understanding one's legal representation and the potential impact of conflicts of interest.