I did title and tax work for someone two years ago; now my bank client wants me to pursue a defaulted loan against him. May I?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney represents Client A, a financial institution that made loans to Client B. The attorney formerly represented Client B, two years earlier, in real estate title work and as tax counsel. Client B is in default on the loans, and the attorney wants to represent Client A in the collection matter against Client B.

The panel agreed the inquiry is governed by Rhode Island Rule 1.9 (conflict of interest; former client). Under Rule 1.9(a), a lawyer who formerly represented a client shall not represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the former client unless the former client consents after consultation; under Rule 1.9(b), the lawyer shall not use information relating to the former representation to the former client's disadvantage except as Rule 1.6 or 3.3 would permit or when the information has become generally known. The panel concluded that the attorney cannot continue to represent Client A in the collection matter unless the informed consent of Client B is obtained.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1992, 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 amended Rule 1.9. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can I take the bank's collection case against someone I previously did title and tax work for?

A: Per the opinion, not unless the former client's informed consent is obtained, because Rule 1.9 governs.

Q: Does the two-year gap since I represented the former client change the result?

A: Per the opinion, the panel still applied Rule 1.9 and required the former client's informed consent; it did not treat the lapse of time as removing the conflict.

Q: What limits does Rule 1.9 place on using what I learned from the former client?

A: Per the opinion, Rule 1.9(b) bars using information relating to the former representation to the former client's disadvantage except as Rule 1.6 or 3.3 permits or when the information has become generally known.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rhode Island Rule 1.9 (conflict of interest; former client), corresponding to Model Rule 1.9. Rule 1.9(a) restricts adverse representation in the same or a substantially related matter without the former client's consent; Rule 1.9(b) restricts use of the former client's information to that client's disadvantage. The panel resolved the inquiry by requiring the former client's informed consent before the attorney could pursue the collection.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.9 (duties to former clients)
• RI RPC 1.9(a)-(b)

Statutes:

• None cited.

Cases:

• None cited.

Other opinions cited:

• None cited.

See also

• RI EAP Op. 92-15: Former-Client Conflict in a Substantially Related Real Estate Matter
• RI EAP Op. 92-19: No 1.9 Conflict If the Matters Are Unrelated, but Get Consent
• RI EAP Op. 2019-02: No Conflict Representing Buyer Against a Former Corporate Client Not Related

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%2092-27.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL OPINION #92-27, REQUEST #265
ISSUED MAY 20, 1992

An attorney seeks Panel advice as to whether a conflict of interest arises under the following circumstances.

An attorney represents Client A, a financial institution, which made various loans to Client B. The attorney formerly represented Client B two years ago regarding real estate title work and as tax counsel. Client B is in default of the loans to Client A. The attorney wants to represent Client A in the matter against Client B.

The Panel agrees that this inquiry is governed by Rhode Island Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9, entitled "Conflict of Interest; Former Client."

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; or

(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 is of the opinion that the attorney cannot continue to represent Client A in the collection matter unless the informed consent of Client B is obtained.