I can't locate two personal-injury clients, and investigators say their claims are fraudulent. Can I withdraw, and must I still file suit before the statute of limitations runs to protect them?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney had two separate personal-injury cases with almost identical facts. In each, a client claimed injury from an automobile accident, the attorney processed the claim with the insurer but never brought it to settlement, and the attorney could not locate the client by phone, letter, post office search, or registry search. In one case, the FBI contacted the attorney alleging that the client's identity and injury claim were fraudulent; in the other, an insurance fraud investigator alleged the claim was fraudulent. The attorney asked whether withdrawal was a feasible way to handle the matters, and whether suit had to be filed before the statute of limitations expired to protect each client.

The Panel set out Rule 1.17 (declining or terminating representation), which allowed withdrawal where it can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the client, or where the client persists in conduct the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent, has used the lawyer's services to perpetrate a crime or fraud, or the representation has become an unreasonable burden.

The Panel emphasized that the attorney was under an obligation to exercise diligence in locating the client, quoting its prior Opinion 91-82 that "the attorney should continue efforts to locate the client, perhaps by personal visitation to the last known address," and noting a diligent search might include the post office and registry of motor vehicles. It concluded that if the attorney reasonably believed the claim was fraudulent, withdrawal was permitted, quoting the Comment that a lawyer is not required to be associated with criminal or fraudulent conduct. The Panel added that because the client had not authorized suit, the attorney might reasonably believe the client did not intend to pursue the matter, but unless permitted to terminate under the Rules, the attorney had to continue to protect the client's interests.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1993 (Opinion 93-1, issued March 31, 1993), after the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 15, 1988, and it applies Rule 1.17 (Rhode Island's counterpart to Model Rule 1.16) 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 the withdrawal rule. 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, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer withdraw when the lawyer suspects the client's claim is fraudulent?

A: The Panel concluded that if the attorney reasonably believes the claim is fraudulent, withdrawal is permitted under Rule 1.17, because a lawyer is not required to be associated with criminal or fraudulent conduct.

Q: What must a lawyer do about a client who cannot be located?

A: Exercise diligence in locating the client. The Panel quoted Opinion 91-82 that the attorney should continue efforts, including personal visitation to the last known address, and noted a search of the post office and motor vehicle registry.

Q: If the lawyer cannot yet withdraw, what happens to the statute of limitations?

A: The Panel stated that unless the attorney is permitted to terminate the representation under the Rules, the attorney must continue to protect the client's interests.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Rhode Island Rule of Professional Conduct 1.17 (declining or terminating representation), the state's counterpart to Model Rule 1.16. The rule permitted withdrawal without material adverse effect on the client, and permitted withdrawal where the client persists in conduct the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent or has used the lawyer's services to perpetrate a fraud. The analysis turned on the lawyer's reasonable belief about fraud and the continuing duty of diligence to a client who cannot be located.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.16 / RI RPC 1.17(b) (declining or terminating representation; permissive withdrawal for suspected client fraud)

Other opinions cited:

• RI EAP Opinion 91-82 (Issued December 5, 1991): duty to continue efforts to locate a missing client

See also

• RI EAP Opinion 91-82: locate a missing client and file suit before limitations expires
• RI EAP Opinion 93-84: client forgery, confidentiality, and returning documents on withdrawal under Rule 1.6

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%2093-01.pdf

Original opinion text

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

Final
ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
Opinion #93-1, Request #329
Issued March 31, 1993

An attorney seeks Panel advice as to how to proceed in a case where clients cannot be located. The attorney has two separate cases where the facts are almost identical. The attorney interviewed two clients who claimed personal injury from automobile accidents. The attorney processed the claims with the respective insurance companies but never brought the case to settlement. The attorney is unable to locate the clients by phone, letter, post office search or registry search. In one case, the Federal Bureau of Investigation contacted the attorney alleging that both the client's identity and the personal injury claim were fraudulent. In the other case, an insurance fraud investigator contacted the attorney alleging that the client's claim was fraudulent.

The attorney asks whether withdrawal from representation is a feasible way to handle these matters. In addition, the attorney asks whether law suits must be filed before the statute of limitations expires in order to protect each client.

Rule 1.17 entitled "Declining or Terminating Representation" allows an attorney to withdraw from the representation of a client if fraud is involved. Rule 1.17(b)(1) and (2) states that:

Except as stated in paragraph (c), a lawyer may withdraw from representing a client if withdrawal can be accomplished without material adverse effect on the interest of the client; or if:

(1) the client persists in a course of action involving the lawyer's services that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent;

(2) the client has used the lawyer's services to perpetrate a crime or fraud; ...

(4) the client fails substantially to fulfill an obligation to the lawyer regarding the lawyer's services and has been given reasonable warning that the lawyer will withdraw unless the obligation is fulfilled;

(5) the representation will result in an unreasonable financial burden on the lawyer or has been rendered unreasonably difficult by the client; or

The Panel believes that the attorney is under an obligation to exercise diligence in locating the client. The Panel has opined in a prior opinion that "the attorney should continue efforts to locate the client, perhaps by personal visitation to the last known address." See, Ethics Advisory Opinion #91-82, Issued December 5, 1991. A diligent search may also include, for example, a search of the post office and registry of motor vehicles.

If the attorney reasonably believes (emphasis added) that the claim is fraudulent, then withdrawal from representation is permitted. The comments to the Rule state: "Withdrawal is also justified if the client persists in a course of action that the lawyer reasonably believes is criminal or fraudulent, for a lawyer is not required to be associated with such conduct even if the lawyer does not further it".

According to the facts, the client has not authorized the attorney to file suit. The attorney may reasonably believe, based upon the facts of this case, that the client does not intend to pursue this matter; unless the attorney is permitted to terminate the representation under the Rules, the attorney must continue to protect the client's interests.