My spouse owns a constable service. Can I use it in my law practice if I tell all my clients about the arrangement in writing?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney's spouse owns a constable service, and the attorney would like to use this service whenever needed in the attorney's law practice. The attorney states that all clients will be informed in writing of the arrangement, and asked whether the proposal violates the Rules.

The panel said Rule 1.7 ("Conflict of Interest") addresses the inquiry, and quoted Rule 1.7(b): a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client or by the lawyer's own interests, unless the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected and the client consents after consultation. It cited the comments, which state that a lawyer's own interests should not be permitted to have an adverse effect on representation, and that a lawyer may not allow related business interests to affect representation, for example by referring clients to an enterprise in which the lawyer has an undisclosed interest.

The panel advised that the attorney should make full disclosure to clients of the spouse's interest in the constable business. If the attorney wishes to refer clients to the constable service, the attorney must offer the clients a choice in constable services and should not pressure the clients into a decision.

In practice

Under this opinion, a lawyer may use a constable service owned by the lawyer's spouse and refer clients to it, but Rule 1.7(b) requires managing the lawyer's own-interest conflict: full disclosure of the spouse's interest, an actual choice of constable services for the client, and no pressure on the client's decision. The opinion draws these conditions from the comments' bar on referring clients to an enterprise in which the lawyer has an undisclosed interest.

Common questions

Q: Can I use my spouse's constable service in my practice?

A: Per the opinion, yes, if the attorney makes full disclosure of the spouse's interest and, when referring clients, offers a choice of constable services without pressuring the client.

Q: Is telling clients in writing enough?

A: Per the opinion, disclosure is required, but the attorney must also offer clients a choice of constable services and not pressure them into a decision.

Q: What rule governs this arrangement?

A: Per the opinion, Rule 1.7(b) (conflict of interest; the lawyer's own interests), read with its comments on related business interests.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rhode Island Rule 1.7(b) (conflict of interest: the lawyer's own interests), corresponding to Model Rule 1.7(b), and its comments barring a lawyer from letting related business interests affect representation, including referring clients to an enterprise in which the lawyer has an undisclosed interest. The panel required disclosure, client choice, and no pressure.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.7(b) (conflict of interest: the lawyer's own interests)
• RI RPC 1.7(b); comments to Rule 1.7

Statutes:

• None cited.

Cases:

• None cited.

Other opinions cited:

• None cited.

See also

• RI EAP Op. 90-01: Referring Clients to the Attorney's Spouse, a Real Estate Agent
• RI EAP Op. 93-03: Representing a Client and the Opposing Lawyer in a Separate Matter
• RI EAP Op. 92-74: A Receiver Representing an Employee's Spouse in an Unrelated Matter

Currency note

This opinion was issued in early 1993 (Opinion 93-04, issued March 15, 1993), 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 Rule 1.7 (conflict of interest: current clients). 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.

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%2093-04.pdf

Original opinion text

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

ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
Opinion 93-4, Request #334
Issued March 15, 1993

An attorney seeks Panel advice regarding the following conduct. The attorney's spouse owns a constable service. The attorney would like to use this service whenever needed in the attorney's law practice. The attorney states that all clients will be informed in writing regarding this arrangement. The attorney asks whether this proposal violates the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Panel agrees that Rule 1.7 "Conflict of Interest" addresses this inquiry. Rule 1.7 states that:

(b) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client or by the lawyer's own interests, unless:

(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected; and

(2) the client consents after consultation.

The comments specifically address this inquiry. They state that "The lawyer's own interests should not be permitted to have adverse effect on representation of a client . . . A lawyer may not allow related business interests to affect representation, for example, by referring clients to an enterprise in which the lawyer has an undisclosed interest." The attorney should make a full disclosure to the clients regarding the spouse's interest in the constable business. If the attorney wishes to refer clients to the constable services, the attorney must offer the clients a choice in constable services and should not pressure the clients into a decision.