My firm is legal counsel to a state agency and also represents a corporation that might benefit from the agency's decision in a pending case. Is that a conflict?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney asked about a possible conflict of interest arising from the attorney's firm serving as legal counsel to a state agency while also representing a corporation that arguably might benefit from the agency's decision in a pending case.

Based on the facts given, the panel took the position that no conflict of interest exists under Rule 1.7(b), because any effect on the corporation from the agency action is highly speculative, and it seemed apparent that the firm's legal responsibilities to the agency will not be materially limited by the firm's responsibilities to the corporation, any other party, or its own interests.

The panel added that the attorney's recusal as a hearing officer for the agency in a case directly involving the corporation was clearly appropriate and created no inference bearing on the first conflict issue.

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 1.7(b) 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 the conflict-of-interest rules. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Why was there no conflict here?

A: Per the opinion, any effect on the corporation from the agency's action was highly speculative, so the firm's responsibilities to the agency would not be materially limited by its responsibilities to the corporation, another party, or its own interests.

Q: Which rule did the panel apply?

A: Per the opinion, Rule 1.7(b), the rule addressing whether a representation may be materially limited by the lawyer's other responsibilities.

Q: What about the attorney serving as a hearing officer for the agency?

A: Per the opinion, the attorney's recusal as a hearing officer in a case directly involving the corporation was clearly appropriate and created no inference bearing on the conflict question.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rhode Island Rule 1.7(b), corresponding to Model Rule 1.7 (conflict of interest, current clients). At the time, Rule 1.7(b) addressed a representation that may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client or third person, or by the lawyer's own interests. The panel's analysis turned on the speculative nature of the benefit the corporation might derive from the agency's decision.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.7 (conflict of interest: current clients)
• RI RPC 1.7(b)

Statutes:

• None cited.

Cases:

• None cited.

Other opinions cited:

• None cited.

See also

• RI EAP Op. 91-63: A Government Lawyer Representing Private Clients Before Other Agencies
• RI EAP Op. 91-58: Serving as Both Director and Counsel to a Credit Union
• RI EAP Op. 91-40: Representing a Title Insurer in a Bank's Name Needs the Bank's Consent

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%2091-69.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 #91-69, Request #199
Issued September 19, 1991

An attorney seeks Panel advice concerning a possible conflict of interest involving the attorney's firm as legal counsel to a state agency while also representing a corporation which arguably might benefit from the decision of the agency in a pending case.

Based on the facts given, the Panel is of the opinion that no conflict of interest exists under Professional Conduct Rule 1.7(b), since any effect on the corporation by the agency action is highly speculative and it seems apparent that the firm's legal responsibilities to the agency will not be materially limited by the firm's responsibilities to the corporation, any other party or its own interests.

The attorney's recusal as a hearing officer for the agency in a case directly involving the corporation was clearly appropriate and created no inference bearing on the first conflict issue discussed above.