A witness in my case does landscaping work for me. Is that a conflict of interest?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney asked whether a conflict of interest exists where a witness in a case in which the attorney is involved is employed by the attorney for landscaping services.

Based on the fact that there is no connection between the employment and the legal services involved, the panel took the position that no conflict exists, because the attorney disclosed this fact to all parties involved and no appearance of impropriety exists. The panel cited Rule 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 it matter that the witness works for me on something unrelated?

A: Per the opinion, what mattered to the panel was that there is no connection between the landscaping employment and the legal services involved.

Q: What did I have to do for there to be no conflict?

A: Per the opinion, the attorney disclosed the employment relationship to all parties involved, and the panel found no appearance of impropriety.

Q: Which rule did the panel rely on?

A: Per the opinion, the panel cited Rule 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rule 8.4(d) (misconduct prejudicial to the administration of justice), corresponding to Model Rule 8.4. The panel treated the question as one of appearance of impropriety and turned on two facts: the absence of any connection between the witness's landscaping employment and the legal matter, and the attorney's disclosure of the relationship to all parties. On those facts the panel found no conflict.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 8.4 (misconduct)
• RI RPC 8.4(d)

Statutes:

• None cited.

Cases:

• None cited.

Other opinions cited:

• None cited.

See also

• RI EAP Op. 91-33: No Conflict When a Former Client May Testify Against a Current Client
• RI EAP Op. 91-43: Office-Sharing Lawyers on Opposite Sides
• RI EAP Op. 91-60: A Lateral Associate's Prior Plaintiff Work Imputes a Conflict

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%2091-67.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 #91-67, Request #186a
Issued September 19, 1991

An attorney seeks Panel advice as to whether or not a conflict of interest exists where a witness in a case in which the attorney is involved is employed by the attorney for landscaping services.

Based on the fact that there is no connection between the employment and the legal services involved, the Panel takes the position that no conflict exists since the attorney disclosed this fact to all parties involved and no appearance of impropriety exists. See Rule 8.4(d) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.