I represent two clients in separate divorces. They are romantically involved and each could be a witness in the other's case. Can I keep representing both at the same time?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney represented Client A in a divorce against her spouse and also represented Client B in a divorce against his spouse. Clients A and B were romantically involved, and each might be a witness in the other's divorce proceeding. The attorney asked whether he or she could continue to represent both clients simultaneously.

The panel analyzed the question under Rule 1.7 ("Conflict of Interest: General Rule"), distinguishing its two subsections. Rule 1.7(a) applies when the representation of one client is directly adverse to another client; Rule 1.7(b) applies when the representation of one client would be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, to a third person, or by the lawyer's own interests.

The panel concluded that it did not appear the representation of Client B would be directly adverse to Client A, so Rule 1.7(a) was not the operative bar. Instead, the concern was Rule 1.7(b): if the attorney's representation of B might be materially limited by his or her responsibilities to A, the attorney may represent both A and B simultaneously only if the attorney reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected and each client consents after consultation.

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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Were the two divorce cases directly adverse to each other?

A: Under this opinion, no. The panel concluded it did not appear that the representation of Client B would be directly adverse to Client A, so Rule 1.7(a) was not the controlling provision.

Q: Which part of Rule 1.7 governed the situation?

A: The panel focused on Rule 1.7(b), the material-limitation provision, because the attorney's responsibilities to one client could materially limit the representation of the other.

Q: What did the lawyer need to continue representing both clients?

A: The panel concluded the attorney may continue only if the attorney reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected and each client consents after consultation.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rule 1.7 (Conflict of Interest: General Rule), corresponding to Model Rule 1.7. The panel quoted both Rule 1.7(a) (direct adversity) and Rule 1.7(b) (material limitation), and its analysis turned on which subsection applied. Finding no direct adversity between the two divorces, the panel treated the matter as a potential material-limitation conflict governed by Rule 1.7(b), which the rule permits the lawyer to undertake on reasonable belief plus each client's consent after consultation.

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. 95-53: A Former Mediator's Later Client
• RI EAP Op. 95-11: Deposing a Current Client
• RI EAP Op. 95-17: Representing a Corporation and Stockholder in a Buyout

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%2095-54.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 # 95-54, - REQUEST # 629
ISSUED - NOVEMBER 9, 1995

The inquiring attorney represents Client A in a divorce proceeding against her spouse. The inquiring attorney also represents Client B in a divorce against his spouse. Clients A and B are romantically involved and each may be witnesses in one another's divorce proceeding. The inquiring attorney asks whether he/she may continue to represent both clients simultaneously under the present circumstances.

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.

Rule 1.7(a) applies when the representation of a client is directly adverse to another client. Rule 1.7(b) applies when representation of one client would be materially limited by other interests or responsibilities of the attorney. In this situation, it does not appear that the representation of client B would be directly adverse to Client A. If the attorney's representation of B may be materially limited by his/her responsibilities to A the inquiring attorney may

OP 95-54 - RQ 629
Page 2

represent both A and B simultaneously only if the inquiring attorney reasonably believes that the representation will not adversely affect the relationship with the other client and each client consents after consultation.