I represent two clients, and one of them now has information that is directly adverse to the other's workers' compensation and personal injury claims. Can I keep representing both under Rule 1.7?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney had represented Client A for many years. Client A referred Client B to the firm for a workers' compensation claim, and Client A was a possible witness in Client B's workers' compensation case. Client B also had a separate personal injury matter, and Client A initially stated that he or she had witnessed the accident in a way that corroborated Client B's account. Three months later, Client A told the attorney that the earlier statement supporting Client B's personal injury claim was false; Client B maintained his or her version, and the two revealed that they had had a personal relationship that had ended.

Because Client A now held information detrimental to Client B's workers' compensation claim and personal injury case, the attorney asked whether he or she could continue to represent both clients. The Panel set out Rule 1.7, which bars representing a client if the representation will be directly adverse to another client absent the conditions in Rule 1.7(a), and bars representation that may be materially limited by responsibilities to another client absent the conditions in Rule 1.7(b).

Applying Rule 1.7(a), the Panel found that Client A's representation was directly adverse to Client B's interest in both the workers' compensation matter and the personal injury claim. It concluded that the attorney should withdraw from representing Client B in both matters due to the adverse relationship with Client A.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1994 (Opinion 94-45, issued June 22, 1994), 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 amended 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: If two of my clients turn out to have directly adverse interests, can I keep representing both?

A: The Panel concluded no on these facts. Under Rule 1.7(a), because Client A's interests were directly adverse to Client B's, the attorney could not continue representing both.

Q: Which client should the lawyer withdraw from here?

A: The Panel opined that the attorney should withdraw from representing Client B in both the workers' compensation and personal injury matters due to the adverse relationship with Client A.

Q: What made the representation directly adverse?

A: Client A held information detrimental to Client B's workers' compensation and personal injury claims, so representing Client A was directly adverse to Client B's interest in both matters.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Rhode Island Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7 (conflict of interest: general rule), the analog of Model Rule 1.7. Rule 1.7(a) prohibits representing a client when the representation will be directly adverse to another client unless the lawyer reasonably believes the relationship will not be adversely affected and each client consents after consultation. The Panel applied the directly-adverse branch and concluded withdrawal from Client B was required.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.7 / RI RPC 1.7(a), (b) (conflict of interest: general rule; directly adverse representation of concurrent clients)

See also

• RI EAP Opinion 94-47: adverse to former client in a substantially related school matter
• RI EAP Opinion 94-41: members entitled to file for the firm's clients

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%2094-45.pdf

Original opinion text

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

ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
OPINION #94-45 REQUEST #512
Issued June 22, 1994

The inquiring attorney has represented Client A for numerous years. Client A then referred Client B to the law firm regarding a Workers' Compensation claim. A is a possible witness in Client B's Workers' Compensation case. Soon thereafter, both Client A and B meet at the attorney's office whereby B informed the attorney that he/she was involved in a personal injury matter involving a separate body part other than the one in the Workers' Compensation case. A states that he/she witnessed the accident and recites the events of said accident which coincides with B's version of the accident. Three months later, A informs the attorney that his/her statement regarding B's personal injury claim was false. Client B maintains his/her version of the story. B states that he/she and A had a personal relationship which has ended. Because A has information detrimental to B's Workers' Compensation claim and the personal injury case, can the attorney continue to represent both Clients A and B.

Rule 1.7 entitled "Conflict of Interest: General Rule" states the following:

(a) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client will be directly adverse to another client, unless:

(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not adversely affect the relationship with the other client; and

(2) each client consents after consultation.

(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 to a third person, 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. When representation of multiple clients in a single matter is undertaken, the consultation shall include explanation of the implications of the common representation and the advantages and risks involved.

Pursuant to Rule 1.7(a) the inquiring attorney shall not represent a client if the representation of that client will be directly adverse to another client. Client A's representation is directly adverse to Client B's interest in both the Workers' Compensation matter and the personal injury claim. In this regard, the attorney should withdraw from representing B in both matters due to the adverse relationship with A.