I served as a state-appointed mediator between a school committee and a teachers' union. Can I now represent a committee member in an unrelated lawsuit against the former superintendent?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney had recently served as a state-appointed mediator for contract negotiations between a school committee and a teachers' group. That matter was set for arbitration and the mediation process had abated. One week after the mediation ended, a member of the school committee sought to retain the inquiring attorney in connection with a lawsuit brought by the town's former superintendent, concerning matters unrelated to the subjects of the mediation. The attorney asked whether representing the committee member would violate the conflict-of-interest rules.

The panel applied Rule 1.7 ("Conflict of Interest: General Rule"), which bars representing a client directly adverse to another client unless the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not adversely affect the relationship with the other client and each client consents after consultation.

The panel emphasized that in the mediation the inquiring attorney had been an impartial party and had not represented either the school committee or the teachers' group. Because there was no prior client relationship to be affected, the panel concluded that representing the committee member would not be adversely affected by the attorney's earlier role as mediator, and the attorney may take the representation consistent with Rule 1.7.

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 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 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 serving as a mediator create a client relationship with the parties?

A: Under this opinion, no. The panel treated the inquiring attorney as an impartial party who did not represent either the school committee or the teachers' group during the mediation.

Q: Can a former mediator later represent one of the parties?

A: The panel concluded the attorney may represent the school committee member because the lawsuit was unrelated to the mediation and no client relationship from the mediation would be adversely affected.

Q: What made the later representation permissible under Rule 1.7?

A: The panel reasoned that, with no client relationship arising from the impartial mediation, the new representation would not be directly adverse to another client and would not be adversely affected, so Rule 1.7 did not bar it.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rule 1.7 (Conflict of Interest: General Rule), corresponding to Model Rule 1.7. The panel quoted Rule 1.7(a), which bars a representation directly adverse to another client unless the lawyer reasonably believes the other client relationship will not be adversely affected and each client consents after consultation. The analysis turned on the threshold question of whether any client relationship existed at all: because the attorney had acted as an impartial state-appointed mediator, the panel found none to be affected.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.7 (conflict of interest: current clients)
• RI RPC 1.7

Statutes:

• None cited.

Cases:

• None cited.

Other opinions cited:

• None cited.

See also

• RI EAP Op. 95-01: Lawyer-Therapist Mediation Barred
• RI EAP Op. 95-54: Divorce Clients Who Are Dating
• RI EAP Op. 2018-04: Former Judge May Appear Before Former Court

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%2095-53.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 # 95-53, - REQUEST # 627
ISSUED - NOVEMBER 9, 1995

The inquiring attorney recently served as a state-appointed mediator for contract negotiations between a school committee and a teachers' group. The matter is set for arbitration and the mediation process has abated. One week after the mediation process ended, a member of the school committee sought the services of the inquiring attorney in connection with a law suit commenced by the former superintendent of the same town. The lawsuit concerns matters unrelated to those that were addressed in the mediation matter. The inquiring attorney asks whether he/she may represent this client without violating the conflict of interest rules.

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.

Pursuant to Rule 1.7, a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation will be directly adverse to another client, unless the lawyer has a reasonable belief that the clients' representation will not be adversely affected and each client consents. According to these facts, the inquiring attorney was an impartial party and did not represent the school committee or the teachers' group. The representation of the school committee member will not be adversely affected by the inquiring attorney's position as mediator. The inquiring attorney may represent the client in accordance with Rule 1.7.