I'm a volunteer city solicitor. Can I represent a city resident against the State under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act when the underlying case was a city police prosecution?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney is a volunteer City Solicitor of City A in matters not involving criminal prosecutions. The attorney asks whether it would be a conflict of interest to represent a resident of City A in an action against the State of Rhode Island under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, where the underlying incident was a criminal prosecution initiated by City A's police department.

The panel concluded that, under Rule 1.7 and the facts presented, there appears to be no conflict of interest in the attorney's representation of City A's residents. The panel reasoned that City A is not a party in the criminal injuries compensation matter; the parties are the State of Rhode Island and the private citizen, so a conflict of interest is not present.

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. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Is it a conflict for a city solicitor to represent a resident against the State?

A: Per the opinion, on these facts no; under Rule 1.7 there appears to be no conflict of interest in the representation.

Q: Why isn't the city's role in the underlying prosecution a conflict?

A: Per the opinion, because City A is not a party in the criminal injuries compensation matter; the parties are the State of Rhode Island and the private citizen.

Q: Does the panel's conclusion depend on the specific facts?

A: Per the opinion, yes; the panel qualified its conclusion as being "pursuant to Rule 1.7 and the facts furnished as presented."

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 resolved the question by identifying the parties to the compensation action (the State and the private citizen) and observing that the city, which the attorney serves as volunteer solicitor, is not a party, so the representation is not directly adverse to a client.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

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

Statutes:

• Criminal Injuries Compensation Act (Rhode Island), the basis for the resident's action against the State.

Cases:

• None cited.

Other opinions cited:

• None cited.

See also

• RI EAP Op. 92-32: School Department While Opposing the Town's Zoning Board
• RI EAP Op. 2023-4: Simultaneous Town and Agency Representation, No Conflict
• RI EAP Op. 91-63: Government Lawyer May Represent Clients Before Other Agencies if 1.7 Met

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%2092-36.pdf

Original opinion text

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

ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
Opinion #92-36, Request #256
Issued July 23, 1992

An attorney seeks Panel advice regarding the following circumstances. The attorney is a volunteer City Solicitor of City A in matters not involving criminal prosecutions. The attorney asks whether it would be a conflict of interest if the attorney represented a resident of City A in an action against the State of Rhode Island under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act. The underlying incident for the action against the state was a criminal prosecution initiated by City A's police department.

The Panel believes that pursuant to Rule 1.7 and the facts furnished as presented, there appears to be no conflict of interest for the attorney in the representation of City A's residents. City A is not a party in the criminal injuries compensation matter. The State of Rhode Island and the private citizen are the parties, therefore, a conflict of interest is not present.