My wife is a bankruptcy court clerk with purely ministerial duties limited to Chapter 11 filings. Can I represent debtors filing under Chapter 7 and Chapter 13, different chapters than the ones she handles?

Plain-English summary

The attorney's wife is a clerk in the local United States Bankruptcy Court; her duties are purely ministerial and generally limited to filings made under 11 U.S.C. Section 1101 et seq. (Chapter 11 reorganizations). The attorney wants to represent clients seeking protection from creditors under the Bankruptcy Act, but would limit his representation to clients whose filings are made under 11 U.S.C. Section 701 et seq. (Chapter 7 liquidation) and Section 1301 et seq. (Chapter 13 wage-earner plans), chapters distinct from those his wife's ministerial duties touch. He asked the panel whether he may properly represent these clients.

The panel quoted Rule 1.7(b), barring a lawyer from representing a client whose representation may be materially limited by the lawyer's own interests, and Rule 8.4(e), making it professional misconduct for a lawyer to state or imply an ability to improperly influence a government agency or official. The panel found that representing clients filing under Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 does not involve any conflict between those clients' interests and the interests of the attorney or his wife, so Rule 1.7's pertinent provisions are not applicable and have no relevance to the inquiry. Similarly, because the wife's function as clerk is purely ministerial, the panel found Rule 8.4's pertinent provisions have no application to the inquiry. The panel held it is proper for the attorney to represent clients filing under 11 U.S.C. Section 701 et seq. and Section 1301 et seq. under the circumstances described.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in June 1990, after the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 15, 1988, and it applies Rules 1.7 and 8.4 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Does having a spouse who works at a bankruptcy court automatically bar me from practicing bankruptcy law?

A: Not necessarily, per this opinion. The panel found no Rule 1.7 conflict because the wife's ministerial clerk duties were limited to a different bankruptcy chapter than the one the attorney proposed to practice in.

Q: Does it matter that the spouse's role at the court is purely administrative rather than decision-making?

A: Yes. The panel specifically relied on the wife's function being "purely ministerial" in finding that Rule 8.4(e)'s bar on implying improper influence over a government official had no application.

Q: What does Rule 8.4(e) prohibit?

A: Per the opinion, Rule 8.4(e) makes it professional misconduct for a lawyer to state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rule 1.7(b) of the Rhode Island Rules of Professional Conduct, as adopted effective November 15, 1988, governing conflicts from a lawyer's own interests, and Rule 8.4(e), barring implied improper influence over government officials, to an inquiry about representing bankruptcy debtors in chapters distinct from those handled by the attorney's spouse in her ministerial court-clerk role.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.7 (conflict of interest: general rule)
• MR 8.4(e) (misconduct: implying improper government influence)
• RI RPC 1.7(b), 8.4(e), as adopted November 15, 1988

Statutes:

• 11 U.S.C. Section 701 et seq. (Chapter 7 bankruptcy liquidation)
• 11 U.S.C. Section 1101 et seq. (Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization)
• 11 U.S.C. Section 1301 et seq. (Chapter 13 wage-earner bankruptcy plans)

Cases:

• None cited.

Other opinions cited:

• None cited.

See also

• RI EAP Op. 90-28: Probate Judge, Board Practice
• RI EAP Op. 90-11: Rule 1.7 Zoning Board Appearance

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%2090-29.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 #90-29, REQUEST #107
Issued June 25, 1990

An attorney seeks Panel advice as to whether he may properly represent certain clients under the circumstances he describes.

The attorney advises the Panel that his wife is a clerk in the local United States Bankruptcy Court. The attorney states that his wife's duties are purely ministerial and are generally limited to filings made pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 1101 et seq. The attorney advises the Panel that he would like to represent clients seeking protection from creditors pursuant to the Bankruptcy Act and he indicates that he would limit his representation to those clients whose filings are made pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 701 et seq. and 11 U.S.C. Section 1301 et seq. The attorney asks the Panel whether he may properly represent these clients.

Rule 1.7, titled "Conflict of Interest: General Rule" provides, in pertinent part:

(b) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer's own interests.

Rule 8.4(e), titled "Misconduct," provides, in pertinent part,

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official.

Representing clients who are filing pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 701 et seq. and 11 U.S.C. Section 1301 et seq. does not involve any conflict between the interests of the attorney's clients and those of the attorney or his wife. The pertinent provisions of Rule 1.7 thus are not applicable and therefore have no relevance to the instant inquiry. Similarly, because the attorney's wife's function as clerk is purely ministerial, the pertinent provisions of Rule 8.4 have no application to the attorney's inquiry.

The Panel takes the position that it is proper for the attorney to represent clients filing pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 701 et seq. and 11 U.S.C. Section 1301 et seq. under the circumstances he describes.

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.