performance. Cuyler, 446 U.S. at 348-50, 100 S.Ct. 1708. A showing of prejudice from any such adverse effect is not required. See United States v. Hearst, 638 F.2d 1190, 1194 (9th Cir.1980). An “actual conflict” results when counsel “actively represented conflicting interests.” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 692, 104 S.Ct. 2052 (internal quotation marks omitted). An actual conflict need not be a direct conflict, and it need not be established separately from adverse effect. See Mickens v. Taylor, 535 U.S. 162, 172 n. 5, 122 S.Ct. 1237, 152 L.Ed.2d 291 (2002). Instead, an actual conflict “is a conflict of interest that adversely affects counsel’s performance.” Id. Successive representation is sufficient to establish a conflict, see Belmontes v. Brown, 414 F.3d 1094, 1118 (9th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>), cert. granted sub nom. Ornaski v. Belmontes,
holding that the most significant relationship test as espoused in the restatement of conflicts governs conflicts cases sounding in tort in case where automobile collision occurred in mexico holding that strickland applies to cases involving successive representation holding that conflicts of constitutional magnitude can arise from cases of successive representation recognizing adequacy of notice as a matter of obvious constitutional magnitude holding that the failure to optout precluded challenge to adequate representation based upon purported conflicts of interest between subclasses