My partner once represented an estate for an insurer just to settle within policy limits. Now I represent that same insurer against the estate in a related arbitration, and the executor objects. Must I withdraw?

Plain-English summary

Two lawsuits arose from the same fatal automobile accident. In the first, a passenger in the decedent's car sued the deceased, and the inquiring attorney's law partner was retained by the insurance company to represent the deceased's estate; the partner's only involvement was to expedite a settlement within policy limits, liability was not contested, and the case settled for the maximum allowed. In the second, the deceased's husband, as executor of the estate, filed a claim on behalf of the estate against the same insurance company, which went to arbitration; the husband was represented by Attorney A, and the inquiring attorney represented the insurance company. The husband objected to the inquiring attorney's representation of the insurer and asked him to withdraw.

The Panel set out Rule 1.9 (conflict of interest: former client) and Rule 1.10 (imputed disqualification), which together bar lawyers in the same firm from representing a client in a matter materially adverse to a former client of the firm in the same or a substantially related matter, absent consent after consultation.

The Panel concluded that because the former client (the decedent through the executor) objected, the inquiring attorney could not continue the representation under Rule 1.9. The matters were substantially related and the interests materially adverse to the former client. The Panel stated it was unable to conclude that the attorney should be excused from the conflict by reason of the limited issues or scope of the firm's representation of the estate in the first action.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995 (Opinion 94-28, issued March 23, 1995; the opinion carries a 1994-series number but its official issuance date is 1995), after the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 15, 1988, and it applies Rules 1.9 and 1.10 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 conflict rules. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Does a partner's prior work for a client disqualify the whole firm later?

A: Yes, on these facts. The Panel applied Rule 1.10 to impute the partner's Rule 1.9 conflict to the inquiring attorney, barring the firm from representing the insurer against the former-client estate.

Q: Does a narrow scope of the earlier representation avoid the conflict?

A: No. The Panel said it was unable to excuse the conflict based on the limited issues or scope of the firm's earlier representation of the estate.

Q: Could the conflict have been cured?

A: Only by the former client's consent after consultation. Because the executor objected, the inquiring attorney had to withdraw.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Rhode Island Rules of Professional Conduct 1.9 (duties to former clients) and 1.10 (imputed disqualification), the state analogs of the corresponding Model Rules. Rule 1.9(a) barred a substantially related, materially adverse representation of a former client absent consent; Rule 1.10(a) imputed one lawyer's Rule 1.9 disqualification to others in the firm. The Panel treated the estate as the firm's former client and the executor as the party whose consent was required and withheld.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.9 / RI RPC 1.9(a), (b) (duties to former clients; substantial relationship and material adversity)
• MR 1.10 / RI RPC 1.10(a) (imputed disqualification within a firm)
• MR 1.6 (confidentiality of information)

See also

• RI EAP Opinion 94-17: a former bank client and its director in receivership under Rule 1.9
• RI EAP Opinion 94-10: a former will client and a suit against the trust company under Rule 1.9

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%2094-28.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 #94-28, REQUEST #488
Issued March 23, 1995

The inquiring attorney seeks the Panel's advice regarding a conflict of interest. The following description of facts resulted in two (2) lawsuits stemming from the same fatal automobile accident.

In the first case, the passenger in the decedent's car filed a lawsuit against the deceased. The inquiring attorney's law partner was retained by the insurance company to represent the deceased's estate. The inquiring attorney states that his partner's only involvement was to expedite a settlement within the limits of the insurance policy. Liability was not contested and the case did settle for the maximum amount allowed under the insurance policy.

In the second lawsuit, the deceased's husband as executor of the decedent's estate filed a claim on behalf of the deceased's estate against the same insurance company. This claim has been submitted to arbitration. The husband is represented by Attorney A and the inquiring attorney represents the insurance company. The husband objects to the inquiring attorney's representation of the insurance company and has requested that the inquiring attorney withdraw from the representation.

Rule 1.9 entitled "Conflict of Interest: Former Client" states the following: 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.

In addition, Rule 1.10 entitled "Imputed Disqualification: General Rule" states in pertinent part:

(a) While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall knowingly represent a client when any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by Rules 1.7, 1.8(c), 1.9 or 2.2.

Rules 1.9 and 1.10 prohibit the attorneys in the same law firm from representing a client in a matter materially adverse to the interests of any former client of the law firm in the same or a substantial matter, absent consent after consultation.

In this situation, the former client, the decedent through the executor, is objecting to the representation of the insurance company, therefore, the inquiring attorney cannot continue the representation pursuant to Rule 1.9. The matters are substantially related and the interests are materially adverse to the former client. The Panel is unable to conclude that the inquiring attorney should be excused from this conflict by reason of the limited issues dispositive of or the scope of representation of the decedent's estate in the first action.