My client insists I drop her appeal and settle, but I'm worried she doesn't understand that doing so could jeopardize her insurance coverage. I sent detailed warning letters and reminders, and she never responded before firing me. Am I clear to file a motion to withdraw?

Plain-English summary

An attorney asked the panel about his obligations to his client, Ms. A, who lived with her father, Mr. X, in a home she owned and insured for $100,000. A fire injured both Ms. A and Mr. X, and Mr. X later died of his injuries. Ms. A's daughter sued Ms. A as administratrix of Mr. X's estate; Mr. X died without a will and Ms. A was his sole beneficiary. No settlement was reached, and a verdict of approximately $400,000 was rendered against Ms. A. Ms. A's insurer had reserved its rights from the outset regarding its duty to indemnify her, and after the verdict the insurer filed a separate federal suit to determine the extent of that obligation. After the attorney filed a state-court appeal, Ms. A instructed him to drop the appeal and settle, which concerned him because he feared she did not realize doing so would place her insurance coverage at risk. He wrote a detailed letter explaining the risks and asking her to sign and return it along with answers to specific settlement questions, but she did not respond even after several written reminders. Ms. A then discharged him; he wrote again explaining the problems that might arise from her chosen course and told her he would move to withdraw, though the court would decide whether to allow it. He asked what obligations he had to protect Ms. A.

The panel quoted Rule 1.2(a), requiring a lawyer to abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation and to consult with the client on the means to pursue them. It found the attorney's detailed letters and reminder notices satisfied Rule 1.2(a)'s consultation requirement. The panel held that an attorney may not superimpose his own judgment on a client no matter how praiseworthy the lawyer's motives, but that if the inquiring attorney felt Ms. A's judgment was so flawed that a question of competency arose, he could properly bring as much information as he felt necessary to the trial justice's attention. No violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct arises under the circumstances described if the attorney files a motion to withdraw.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in January 1990, after the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 15, 1988, and it applies Rule 1.2(a) as originally adopted. The Rhode Island Supreme Court later revised the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2007 as part of the nationwide Ethics 2000 process. 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 mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can I be found to have violated the Rules for following a client's risky instructions if I warned her first?

A: This opinion addresses the reverse situation: whether withdrawing, not following the instructions, violates the Rules. The panel held no violation arises from filing a motion to withdraw once the attorney had satisfied Rule 1.2(a) by consulting with the client through detailed warning letters and reminders.

Q: What counts as "consulting" with a client under Rule 1.2(a)?

A: According to this opinion, the attorney's detailed letters explaining the risks in detail, coupled with reminder notices, satisfied Rule 1.2(a)'s requirement that the lawyer consult with the client on the means to pursue the client's objectives.

Q: Can I override my client's decision if I think it's a bad idea?

A: No. The panel held that an attorney may not superimpose his or her judgment on a client, no matter how praiseworthy the lawyer's motives may be.

Q: What can I do if I genuinely believe my client's judgment is impaired, not just risky?

A: The opinion states it is permissible for the attorney to bring as much information as he feels necessary to the trial justice's attention if he believes the client's judgment is so flawed that a question as to her competency arises.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rule 1.2(a) of the Rhode Island Rules of Professional Conduct, as adopted effective November 15, 1988, requiring a lawyer to abide by a client's decisions on the objectives of representation while consulting with the client on the means, to an attorney's warnings and eventual withdrawal after a client instructed him to drop an appeal in a way that risked her insurance coverage.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.2 (scope of representation)
• RI RPC 1.2(a), as adopted November 15, 1988

Statutes:

• None cited.

Cases:

• None cited.

Other opinions cited:

• None cited.

See also

• RI EAP Opinion 89-16: Withdrawal and Interpleader Required When a Client Refuses to Release Escrowed Construction Funds She Is Not Entitled To
• RI EAP Opinion 88-06: Withdrawal From a Medical Malpractice Case After the Client Refuses to Fund the Only Remaining Expert

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-1990-03.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 #90-3, REQUEST #74
Issued January 18, 1990

An attorney seeks Panel advice concerning his obligations, if any, toward a client under the circumstances he describes.

The attorney advises the Panel that his client, Ms. A, and her father, Mr. X, lived together in a home owned by Ms. A and insured for $100,000. A fire broke out in the house, injuring both Ms. A and Mr. X. Mr. X ultimately died of the injuries he sustained. Ms. A's daughter filed suit against Ms. A as administratrix of her grandfather, Mr. X's estate. Mr. X died without a will; his sole beneficiary was the defendant, Ms. A.

The attorney states that no settlement could be reached in the daughter's suit against Ms. A, and that a verdict was rendered against Ms. A which totalled approximately $400,000. The attorney indicates that Ms. A's insurance company had reserved its rights from the outset with regard to its obligation to indemnify Ms. A, and that after the verdict was rendered the insurance company filed suit in federal court to determine the extent of its obligation.

The attorney states that after filing an appeal in the state court action he received a communication from Ms. A stating that she wanted him to drop the appeal and settle the case. The attorney indicates that these instructions concerned him because he was afraid that Ms. A did not realize that if he were to do as she asked, her insurance coverage would be placed at risk. The attorney states that he wrote to Ms. A explaining the potential risks in detail and asking her to sign and return a copy of his letter. The attorney also included some specific questions with regard to any settlement offers he might be able to negotiate. He states that Ms. A did not respond, even after several written reminders.

The attorney states that he recently received a letter from Ms. A discharging him as her attorney. He states that upon receiving this letter he again wrote to Ms. A concerning the problems which might arise from pursuing this course of action. The attorney adds that he told Ms. A that he would file a motion to withdraw from her case, but that the court would ultimately determine whether or not he would be allowed to withdraw from her case.

The attorney states that he is concerned that Ms. A does not understand the dangers inherent in what she has asked him to do. He asks what obligations he has to protect Ms. A under these circumstances.

Rule 1.2, entitled "Scope of Representation" provides, in pertinent part:

(a) A lawyer shall abide by a client's decisions concerning the objectives of representation . . . and shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued.

The Panel first notes that the detailed letters the attorney sent to Ms. A, coupled with the reminder notices sent to her, satisfied the requirement set forth in Rule 1.2(a) that the lawyer "consult" with his or her client.

The Panel takes the position that an attorney may not superimpose his or her judgment on a client, no matter how praiseworthy the lawyer's motives may be. If the inquiring attorney feels that Ms. A's judgment is so flawed at this point that a question as to her competency arises, it is certainly permissible for him to bring as much information as he feels is necessary to the attention of the trial justice. No violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct arises under the circumstances he has outlined if he files a motion to withdraw.

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.