🧪 TEST MODE ACTIVE Use test card: 4242 4242 4242 4242
RIEAP December 4, 1991

I represented the City Council in negotiations with the Mayor. Can I keep representing clients with claims against the city, even on unrelated matters?

Short answer: The panel concluded that because the City Council is integrally involved in matters concerning the city, the attorney should obtain the consent of all involved parties under Rule 1.7 before continuing to represent clients against the city, even where the matters are unrelated; otherwise an appearance of impropriety would exist.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1991. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 1991
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney asked about the propriety of continuing to represent parties in claims against a city after having represented the City Council in negotiations with the Mayor.

The panel took the position that, because the City Council is integrally involved in matters concerning the city, the attorney should obtain the consent of all involved parties before continuing representation of clients against the city, even where the representation involves unrelated matters. The panel added that an appearance of impropriety would exist if the attorney continued representing these clients without first obtaining the consent of the parties. The panel cited Rule 1.7 of the Rhode Island 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, and it applies Rule 1.7 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 does representing the City Council affect suing the city?

A: Per the opinion, the City Council is integrally involved in matters concerning the city, so the panel treated continued representation against the city as raising a conflict even on unrelated matters.

Q: What must I do before continuing to represent clients against the city?

A: Per the opinion, obtain the consent of all involved parties before continuing the representation.

Q: What happens if I do not obtain consent?

A: Per the opinion, an appearance of impropriety would exist if the attorney continued representing these clients without first obtaining the parties' consent.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rhode Island Rule 1.7, corresponding to Model Rule 1.7 (conflict of interest, current clients). The panel treated the attorney's representation of the City Council as bearing on any adverse representation against the city, given the Council's integral role in city matters, and identified consent of all involved parties as the condition for continuing.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

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

Statutes:

  • None cited.

Cases:

  • None cited.

Other opinions cited:

  • None cited.

See also

Source

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 #91-79
Issued December 4, 1991

An attorney seeks Panel advice as to the propriety of continuing representation of parties in claims against a city, after having represented the City Council in negotiations with the Mayor.

The Panel is of the opinion that since the City Council is integrally involved in matters concerning the City, the attorney should obtain the consent of all involved parties before continuing representation of clients against the city, even where the representation involves unrelated matters. The Panel further believes that the appearance of impropriety would exist if the attorney continued representing these clients without first obtaining consent of the parties. See Rule 1.7 of the Rhode Island Rules of Professional Conduct.

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1991 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.