I worked for a utility for eight years in non-lawyer roles, then got admitted to the bar. Can I now take a state-agency legal job that would put me opposite that utility?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney asked whether the lawyer could accept employment as an attorney for a state public agency that would be a party opponent, in administrative and judicial proceedings, to the company where the attorney was then employed in a non-lawyer capacity. The lawyer had worked for a public utility corporation over an eight-year period in positions involving communications, public affairs, legislative relations, and regulatory compliance, and had attended law school during that time before being admitted to practice in Rhode Island.

The panel noted that the attorney had testified as a non-lawyer before the state legislature and a state agency on the company's behalf, that the corporation had never specifically offered the lawyer employment as an attorney, and that the corporation had not recognized an attorney-client relationship between the lawyer and itself.

The panel took the position that the submitted facts did not give rise to a conflict of interest, basing that view on the fact that the attorney had access only to "public information" as a non-lawyer employee of the corporation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1991, after the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 15, 1988. The Rhode Island Supreme Court later revised the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2007 as part of the nationwide Ethics 2000 process, which renumbered and amended several provisions. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 prior non-lawyer employment create a conflict when a new lawyer opposes the former employer?

A: Under this opinion, no, on these facts. The panel found no conflict because the lawyer had access only to public information as a non-lawyer employee and the company never recognized an attorney-client relationship.

Q: What fact was decisive for the panel?

A: The panel based its no-conflict view on the fact that the attorney's access as a non-lawyer employee was limited to public information.

Q: Did the company's lack of an attorney-client relationship matter?

A: Yes. The panel noted the corporation had never offered the lawyer employment as an attorney and had not recognized an attorney-client relationship, supporting the conclusion that no conflict arose.

Background and rules framework

The opinion does not cite a Rule of Professional Conduct by number. The question of a lawyer's duties to a former client is addressed by Rhode Island Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9, corresponding to Model Rule 1.9; the panel's analysis turned on the absence of any prior attorney-client relationship, so that the former-client conflict framework did not bar the new employment. The panel keyed its conclusion to the lawyer's access having been limited to public information.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• The opinion cites no Rule of Professional Conduct by number. The duties-to-former-clients framework is RI RPC 1.9 / MR 1.9.

Statutes:

• None cited.

Cases:

• None cited.

Other opinions cited:

• None cited.

See also

• RI EAP Op. 95-33: Screening a Former Government Lawyer
• RI EAP Op. 95-53: A Former Mediator's Later Client
• RI EAP Op. 95-34: Former Client as Opposing Witness

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%2091-03.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 #91-3, REQUEST #131
Issued February 20, 1991

An attorney seeks Panel advice as to whether the lawyer may accept employment as an attorney for a state public agency which would be a party opponent in administrative and judicial proceedings to the company with which the attorney is presently employed in a non-lawyer capacity.

The lawyer has been employed over an eight year period by a public utility corporation. The positions held involved communications, public affairs, legislative relations and regulatory compliance. During this time the attorney was never employed by the corporation as a lawyer. The attorney attended law school during this period and successfully applied for admission to the practice of law in the State of Rhode Island.

The attorney has testified as a non-lawyer before the state legislature and a state agency on behalf of the company. The corporation has never specifically offered the lawyer employment as an attorney. The corporation has not recognized an attorney-client relationship between the lawyer and itself.

The Panel takes the position that the facts submitted do not give rise to a conflict of interest. The Panel bases this view on the fact that the attorney had access only to "public information" as a non-lawyer employee of the corporation.

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.