I once represented a man who later married someone now suing my client for age discrimination. Can I represent my client against that spouse, or is it a conflict?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney had represented an individual, A, on several matters before A married. A married B, who was employed by one of the attorney's clients. B later terminated the employment and filed an age discrimination suit against the attorney's client, the employer. The employer asked the attorney to represent it against B, and the attorney asked whether representing the employer created a conflict of interest.

The panel analyzed the question under Rule 1.7 (the general conflict rule) and Rule 1.9 (former client). It explained that B was never a client and does not become a client by virtue of marrying A. Under the conflict rules, the clients in question were A and the employer, in two separate matters, and B did not become a former client simply because he was now married to A.

The panel concluded that the attorney may represent the employer against B because there is no conflict of interest: B was never the attorney's client and is not a former client through A's representation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995, after the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 15, 1988, and it applies Rules 1.7 and 1.9 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 renumbered and amended several provisions. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 representing a former client make that client's spouse a client too?

A: No. The panel held that a spouse does not become a client or former client merely by marrying someone the attorney previously represented.

Q: Was there any conflict between the two representations here?

A: The panel found none. The clients were the former individual client and the employer, involved in two separate matters, and the opposing spouse was never a client.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rule 1.7 (Conflict of Interest: General Rule) and Rule 1.9 (Conflict of Interest: Former Client), corresponding to Model Rules 1.7 and 1.9. As the panel framed it, a conflict under these rules requires that two clients be directly or materially adverse to one another. Because the opposing party was never a client, neither rule was implicated.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.7 (conflict of interest: current clients)
• MR 1.9 (duties to former clients)
• RI RPC 1.7, 1.9

Statutes:

• None cited.

Cases:

• None cited.

Other opinions cited:

• None cited.

See also

• RI EAP Op. 95-50: Suing a Former Client in an Unrelated Property Case
• RI EAP Op. 95-42: Adverse to a Former Will Client in an Unrelated Matter
• RI EAP Op. 95-34: No Conflict Where a Former Divorce Client May Testify for the Prosecution

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%2095-48.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 # 95-48, REQUEST # 616
OCTOBER 12, 1995

The inquiring attorney represented an individual, A, on several legal matters before A was married. A married B who is employed by one of the inquiring attorney's clients. Thereafter B terminated his employment and has filed an age discrimination suit against the inquiring attorney's client. The employer asked the inquiring attorney to represent it against B. The inquiring attorney asks whether he/she has a conflict of interest if he/she represents the employer in this matter.

The Rules on Conflict of Interest are Rule 1.7 "General Rule" and 1.9 "Former Client." In this set of facts, B was never a client and is not made a client by virtue of marriage to A. Under the conflict rules, two clients must be either directly adverse or materially adverse to one another. Here, the clients involved are A and the employer, in two separate matters. B does not become a former client merely because he is now married to A.

The inquiring attorney may represent the employer against B because there is no conflict of interest. B was never a client to the inquiring attorney and he is not a former client through A's representation.