Can I represent a town's school department and at the same time represent other clients in cases against that town's zoning board?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney asked about the ethical propriety of representing the school department of Town A while simultaneously representing other clients in cases pending against Town A's Zoning Board of Review.

The panel concluded that Rule 1.7 (conflict of interest: general rule) and its comment govern. The comment states that ordinarily a lawyer may not act as advocate against a client the lawyer represents in some other matter, even if wholly unrelated, but recognizes circumstances in which a lawyer may do so: for example, a lawyer representing an enterprise with diverse operations may accept employment as an advocate against the enterprise in an unrelated matter if doing so will not adversely affect the lawyer's relationship with the enterprise or the conduct of the suit and if both clients consent after consultation. The comment adds that the propriety of concurrent representation can depend on the nature of the litigation.

The panel took the position that the school department and the zoning board of review are sufficiently diverse operations that the attorney may undertake the concurrent representation after each client consents after consultation without violating the rules.

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 1.7 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 restructured Rule 1.7 and its comments on concurrent conflicts. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 be adverse to a town body while also representing another of the town's departments?

A: Per the opinion, yes; the panel found the school department and the zoning board of review sufficiently diverse operations that the attorney may undertake the concurrent representation, subject to consent.

Q: What condition does the panel attach to the concurrent representation?

A: Per the opinion, each client must consent after consultation.

Q: Why does the panel treat the two town bodies as separate for conflict purposes?

A: Per the opinion, it applied the Rule 1.7 comment allowing a lawyer to be adverse to one operation of an enterprise with diverse operations in an unrelated matter, finding the school department and zoning board sufficiently diverse.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rhode Island Rule 1.7 (conflict of interest: general rule), corresponding to Model Rule 1.7. The panel relied on the rule's comment addressing enterprises with diverse operations, which permits advocacy against one part of such an enterprise in an unrelated matter where the relationship and the suit are not adversely affected and both clients consent, and noted the comment's point that the propriety of concurrent representation can depend on the nature of the litigation.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.7 (conflict of interest: general rule)
• RI RPC 1.7

Statutes:

• None cited.

Cases:

• None cited.

Other opinions cited:

• None cited.

See also

• RI EAP Op. 2023-4: Simultaneous Town and Agency Representation, No Conflict
• RI EAP Op. 2017-04: Conflict Representing a Client Suing the City While Serving as City Council Counsel (Waivable)
• RI EAP Op. 2022-03: Town Solicitor Non-Waivable Conflict Representing All Entities in a Variance

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%2092-32.pdf

Original opinion text

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

ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
Opinion #92-32, Request #250
Issued July 23, 1992

The attorney seeks Panel advice regarding the ethical propriety of representing the school department of Town A while simultaneously representing other clients in cases pending against Town A's Zoning Board of Review. The Panel believes that this situation is governed by Rule 1.7 "Conflict of Interest: General Rule" and the comment thereto. The comment states that:

Ordinarily, a lawyer may not act as advocate against a client the lawyer represents in some other matter, even if the other matter is wholly unrelated. However, there are circumstances in which a lawyer may act as advocate against a client. For example, a lawyer representing an enterprise with diverse operations may accept employment as an advocate against the enterprise in an unrelated matter if doing so will not adversely affect the lawyer's relationship with the enterprise or conduct of the suit and if both clients consent after consultation . . . . The propriety of concurrent representation can depend on the nature of the litigation. For example, a suit charging fraud entails conflict to a degree not involved in a suit for a declaratory judgment concerning statutory interpretation.

The Panel is of the opinion that the school department and zoning board of review are sufficiently diverse operations so that the attorney may undertake concurrent representation after each client consents after consultation without violating the Rules of Professional Conduct.