I finished evaluating a client's malpractice claim and found it wasn't viable, but now I can't reach the client and my mail came back. What are my obligations?

Plain-English summary

A client had been referred to the inquiring attorney to evaluate whether the client had a medical-malpractice cause of action. After extensive investigation, the attorney determined the client did not have a viable claim. The statute of limitations was estimated to expire in June 1996. The client had maintained contact with the office until June 1994, but a certified letter the attorney mailed in December 1994 advising the client of the case status was returned marked "moved, left no address." The attorney made numerous attempts to locate the client through telephone listings, addresses, post-office searches, and Department of Motor Vehicles inquiries, and asked the panel about his or her obligations to this client.

The panel noted it had received numerous inquiries about the proper ethical conduct for an attorney unable to locate a client. It directed the attorney to its General Information Opinion #6 (issued June 30, 1993), which addresses a lawyer's obligation to exercise diligent efforts both to locate the missing client and to protect the client's interest.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995, before the Rhode Island Supreme Court's 2007 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct adopted as part of the nationwide Ethics 2000 process, and it directs the reader to the panel's General Information Opinion #6. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 guidance mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: What does a lawyer owe a client who has disappeared?

A: The opinion pointed to General Information Opinion #6, which frames the obligation as exercising diligent efforts to locate the missing client and to protect the client's interests.

Q: Had the attorney done enough to find the client?

A: The opinion recounted the attorney's numerous efforts (telephone listings, addresses, post-office searches, DMV inquiries) and did not fault them, referring the diligence standard to General Information Opinion #6.

Background and rules framework

The opinion did not cite a specific numbered Rule of Professional Conduct. It treated the recurring problem of a lawyer unable to locate a client as governed by the panel's General Information Opinion #6, which sets out the twin obligations to make diligent efforts to find the client and to protect the client's interests. The factual backdrop, a claim the attorney had already assessed as non-viable with a limitations period still running, framed why locating the client mattered.

Citations and references

Other opinions cited:

• RI EAP General Information Opinion #6 (June 30, 1993): a lawyer's obligation to exercise diligent efforts to locate a missing client and protect the client's interests

See also

• RI EAP Op. 90-21: Diligence in locating a client before paying funds into the court registry
• RI EAP Op. 95-08: Withdrawal requires court leave after closing a practice

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%2095-24.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 # 95-24, Request # 586
Issued March 23, 1995

A client was referred to the inquiring attorney for the purpose of evaluating whether the client had a cause of action for medical malpractice. After extensive investigation, the inquiring attorney determined that the client did not have a viable claim. The statute of limitation on this matter was estimated to expire in June, 1996. Although the client maintained contact with the inquiring attorney's office until June 1994, a certified letter from the inquiring attorney which advised the client of the status of the case mailed in December, 1994 was returned and labeled "moved - left no address."

The inquiring attorney has made numerous attempts to contact the client via telephone listings, addresses, post office searches and inquiries at the Department of Motor Vehicles. The inquiring attorney seeks the Panel's advice regarding his/her obligation to this client.

The Panel has received numerous inquiries concerning the proper ethical conduct for an attorney who is unable to locate a client. General Information Opinion #6 (Issued June 30, 1993) addresses a lawyer's obligation to exercise diligent efforts both to locate the missing client and to protect the client's interest. See, Ethics Advisory Panel General Information Opinion #6.