I represented a student against two schools. Now one of those schools wants me to sue the other in a related matter, and to run training workshops for the other school's staff. Can I take on that new work under Rule 1.7?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney had represented a student with disabilities in an action against School Y, alleging that School Y's admissions practice was illegal; School Department Z was also a named party in that action. As a result of the litigation, the student attended School Y. School Y then sought to retain the inquiring attorney to defend a lawsuit brought by School Department Z, which alleged that School Y was violating a court order relating to student admission. School Y also sought to retain the attorney as its legal counsel, and School Department Z separately asked the attorney to provide "workshops" educating its staff on regulations and laws pertaining to developmental disabilities. The attorney said he or she would not represent School Department Z in any legal capacity and asked whether he or she could represent School Y and provide the workshops.

The Panel set out Rule 1.7 (conflict of interest: general rule). It observed that the attorney had originally represented the student in a matter against School Y and School Department Z, and that School Y now sought representation against School Department Z in another matter substantially related to the student's lawsuit. Looking to Rule 1.7, the Panel opined that the inquiring attorney may not represent School Y unless the student consents after consultation.

As to the proposed workshops, the Panel opined that the attorney cannot offer legal training to the staff of School Department Z if the attorney also represents another party or parties in proceedings against School Department Z. The Panel viewed the proposed legal training as a legal service that presents a conflict between the interests of School Department Z and of clients adverse to School Department Z.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1994 (Opinion 94-47, issued December 6, 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 the conflict-of-interest 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: Can I sue a party on behalf of a new client when the matter is related to my former client's case?

A: The Panel concluded the attorney may not represent School Y against School Department Z in the substantially related matter unless the former student client consents after consultation.

Q: Does providing training workshops to an organization count as representing interests adverse to my clients?

A: The Panel opined that the attorney cannot offer legal training to School Department Z's staff while representing parties in proceedings against School Department Z, viewing the training as a legal service that presents a conflict.

Q: Whose consent was required for the new representation?

A: The former student client's. The Panel required that the student consent after consultation before the attorney could represent School Y in the substantially related matter.

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. The Panel treated the new representation as substantially related to the prior representation of the student and conditioned it on the student's consent after consultation, and treated the proposed staff training as a legal service creating a conflict with clients adverse to School Department Z.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.7 / RI RPC 1.7(a), (b) (conflict of interest: general rule; representation adverse to a prior client in a substantially related matter, and legal service conflicting with adverse clients' interests)

See also

• RI EAP Opinion 94-45: adverse concurrent clients, attorney must withdraw from Client B
• RI EAP Opinion 94-28: firm's former estate client bars representing the insurer under Rules 1.9/1.10

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%2094-47.pdf

Original opinion text

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

ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
OPINION #94-47 REQUEST #515
Issued December 6, 1994

The inquiring attorney represented a student with disabilities in an action against School Y alleging that School Y's practice of admitting students was illegal. School Department Z was also a named party in this action. As a result of this litigation the student currently attends School Y.

School Y seeks to retain the inquiring attorney to defend a lawsuit brought by School Department Z. School Department Z alleges that School Y is violating a court order relating to student admission. The attorney asks whether he/she may represent School Y against School Department Z.

School Y also seeks to retain the inquiring attorney as its legal counsel. School Department Z has asked the inquiring attorney to provide "workshops" to the staff of School Department Z. The "workshop" would consist of educating the staff on regulations and laws pertaining to developmental disabilities of students. The inquiring attorney alleges that he/she would not represent School Department Z in any legal capacity. The attorney asks if he/she may represent School Y and whether he/she may provide workshop sessions to School Department Z.

Rule 1.7(a) entitled "Conflict of Interest: General Rule" states that:

(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.

The inquiring attorney originally represented a student in a matter against School Y and School Department Z. School Y seeks the inquiring attorney's representation against School Department Z in another matter that is substantially related to the student's lawsuit. The Panel looks to Rule 1.7 and opines that the inquiring attorney may not represent School Y unless the student consents after consultation.

With regard to School Department Z, the Panel opines that the inquiring attorney cannot offer legal training to the staff of School Department Z if the attorney also represents another party or parties in proceedings against School Department Z. The Panel views the proposed legal training as a legal service that presents a conflict between the interests of School Department Z and of clients adverse to School Department Z.