My clients want me to publish an article about their unusual Family Court case, and they're fine with fictitious names being used. Can I do that?

Plain-English summary

An attorney representing parents in a Family Court case he considered unique in Rhode Island asked the panel whether it would be proper to publish an article about the case. The clients had told him they wanted the article published and felt that using fictitious names would provide sufficient anonymity.

The panel rendered its decision on the assumption that the Family Court proceedings at issue were closed to the general public, consistent with Rhode Island Family Court policy and procedure. On that basis, and because the clients had consented, the panel held that the attorney could properly publish the article, provided he used fictitious names for people and for specific places to protect the anonymity of the parents and, particularly, any children involved.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1988, before the Rhode Island Supreme Court's adoption of the 2007 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: My clients want me to write about their case, and I plan to use fictitious names. Is that enough to protect their confidentiality?

A: According to this opinion, yes, provided the clients have consented and the underlying proceeding was closed to the public; the panel also stressed using fictitious names for specific places, not just people.

Q: Does it matter that the case involved children?

A: Yes. The panel specifically flagged protecting the anonymity of "the parents and, particularly, any children" as the reason fictitious names for people and places were required.

Background and rules framework

The opinion does not cite a specific Disciplinary Rule or Ethical Consideration by number; its holding rests on the clients' informed consent to publication and on the use of fictitious names to protect the anonymity of the parties, consistent with the confidentiality of a Family Court proceeding closed to the public.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• None cited by number.

Statutes:

• None cited.

Cases:

• None cited.

Other opinions cited:

• None cited.

See also

No sibling opinions yet indexed.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.courts.ri.gov/attorney-resources/Pages/Ethics-Advisory-Panel-default.aspx
• Original PDF: https://www.courts.ri.gov/Opinions/EAP%2088-23.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

DIGEST OF ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
Opinion #88-23, Request #37
Issued September 22, 1988

An attorney seeks Panel advice as to whether it is proper for him to publish an article on a case he has been handling under certain circumstances. The attorney advises the Panel that he represents some parents in a Family Court case with an unusual twist to it which, he believes, makes the case unique in Rhode Island. The attorney states that his clients have told him that they would like him to publish an article on their case, and that they feel the use of fictitious names would provide sufficient anonymity.

In rendering this decision, the Panel assumes that the Family Court proceedings at issue were closed to the general public, in conformity with Rhode Island Family Court policy and procedure. The Panel takes the position that the attorney may properly publish an article on his clients' case in view of the fact that they have consented and provided that you use fictitious names for people and for specific places to protect the anonymity of the parents and, particularly, any children.

Ethics Advisory Panel advice is protective in nature. There is no requirement that an attorney abide by a Panel opinion, but if he or she does, he or she is fully protected from any charge of impropriety.