My current client in a criminal case gave me information that implicates a former client I once represented on an unrelated misdemeanor. Is that a conflict?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney asked whether a conflict of interest arises where a present client in a pending criminal matter revealed information that implicates a former client. The attorney had represented the former client in connection with an unrelated misdemeanor charge, and stated that the former client had not revealed to the attorney any information that might relate to the accusations made by the present client.

The panel took the position that Rhode Island Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9 controls the situation. Rule 1.9 bars a lawyer who formerly represented a client from representing another person in the same or a substantially related matter materially adverse to the former client without consent, and from using information relating to the former representation to the former client's disadvantage except as Rule 1.6 or Rule 3.3 would permit or when the information has become generally known.

The panel concluded that no conflict of interest arises under these circumstances, because the attorney's representation of the two clients does not involve the same or a substantially related matter.

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, and it applies Rule 1.9 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, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Is it a conflict when a current client implicates a former client?

A: Under this opinion, not on these facts. The panel found no conflict because the two representations do not involve the same or a substantially related matter.

Q: What rule governs this situation?

A: The panel applied Rule 1.9 (Conflict of Interest: Former Client), which turns on whether the matters are the same or substantially related.

Q: Did it matter that the former client shared nothing about the new accusations?

A: The panel noted the attorney stated the former client had not revealed information relating to the present client's accusations, consistent with its conclusion that the matters are not substantially related.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rule 1.9 (Conflict of Interest: Former Client), corresponding to Model Rule 1.9. The panel quoted the rule's bars on adverse representation in a substantially related matter and on misuse of a former client's information, and resolved the inquiry on the "substantially related" threshold, finding the unrelated misdemeanor representation and the current criminal matter not substantially related.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.9 (duties to former clients)
• RI RPC 1.9

Statutes:

• None cited.

Cases:

• None cited.

Other opinions cited:

• None cited.

See also

• RI EAP Op. 91-10: Testifying About a Former Client
• RI EAP Op. 95-34: Former Client as Opposing Witness
• RI EAP Op. 95-50: Suing a Former Criminal-Case Client

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%2091-30.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 #91-30, Request #45
Issued May 23, 1991

An attorney seeks Panel advice as to whether a conflict of interest arises under circumstances in which a present client in a pending criminal matter has revealed information which implicates a former client. The attorney states that he/she represented the former client in connection with an unrelated misdemeanor charge. The attorney also states that the former client did not reveal to the attorney any information which might relate to the accusations made by the present client.

The Panel takes the position that Rhode Island Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9 controls this factual situation. Rule 1.9 provides:

A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter:

(a) represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client consents after consultation.

(b) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as Rule 1.6 or Rule 3.3 would permit or require with respect to a client or when the information has become generally known.

The Panel takes the position that no conflict of interest arises under these circumstances because the attorney's representation of these two clients does not involve the same or a substantially related matter.

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.