A new associate at my firm previously represented the plaintiff in a workers' comp case at another firm. My firm represents the defendant in the related product-liability suit. Can we stay in?

Plain-English summary

A presently employed associate in the inquiring attorney's law firm had, while employed by another law firm, represented the plaintiff in a workers' compensation matter. That workers' compensation matter arose out of an alleged injury caused by a defective product manufactured by a defendant who is represented by the inquiring attorney's law firm. The specific question was whether the inquiring attorney's firm may properly continue to represent the defendant in the product liability action.

The panel took the position that the associate's opportunity to obtain sensitive client information about the plaintiff while employed at the other law firm precludes the inquiring attorney's firm from continuing in the representation of the defendant, unless the firm obtains the informed consent of the plaintiff.

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, including the rules governing imputation and lateral movement between firms. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 guidance mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can my firm keep representing the defendant after hiring the plaintiff's former lawyer?

A: Under this opinion, only with consent. The panel concluded the firm is precluded from continuing to represent the defendant unless it obtains the plaintiff's informed consent.

Q: Why does the associate's prior work matter to the whole firm?

A: Per the opinion, the associate had the opportunity to obtain sensitive client information about the plaintiff at the prior firm, and that opportunity precludes the new firm's continued adverse representation absent consent.

Q: What cures the conflict?

A: Per the opinion, obtaining the informed consent of the plaintiff.

Background and rules framework

The opinion does not cite a numbered Rule of Professional Conduct. It resolves the inquiry on the principle that a laterally hired associate's opportunity to have obtained a former client's sensitive information disqualifies the new firm from a materially adverse representation unless the affected former client gives informed consent, an application of former-client and imputation principles.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• None cited by number. The opinion applies former-client and imputation principles keyed to the associate's access to the plaintiff's sensitive information.

Statutes:

• None cited.

Cases:

• None cited.

Other opinions cited:

• None cited.

See also

• RI EAP Op. 91-48: A Former-Firm Client Conflict
• RI EAP Op. 91-51: Successive Government Practice and the One-Year Bar
• RI EAP Op. 91-43: Office-Sharing Lawyers on Opposite Sides of a Case

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%2091-60.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 #91-60, Request #176
Issued August 29, 1991

An attorney seeks Panel advice concerning ethical obligations under circumstances in which a presently employed associate in his law firm, while employed by another law firm, represented the plaintiff in a workers' compensation matter. The workers' compensation matter arose out of an alleged injury caused by a defective product manufactured by a defendant who is represented by the inquiring attorney's law firm.

The specific question presented is whether the inquiring attorney's law firm may properly continue to represent the defendant in the product liability action. The Panel takes the position that the associate's opportunity to obtain sensitive client information about the plaintiff while employed in the other law firm precludes the inquiring attorney's firm from continuing in the representation of the defendant, unless the law firm obtains the informed consent of the plaintiff.