My firm represents a union, and my father is a city supervisor who sits on a trial board that decides disciplinary complaints against union members. Can we represent union members in that city despite my father's role?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney and a law partner represented a union in various matters, including collective bargaining agreements and the grievance process. The attorney's father was employed in a supervisory capacity with City A and, as part of that employment, was a member of a trial board in City A that decided disciplinary complaints against union members. The attorney contemplated providing legal services to union members in disciplinary complaints, which would result in direct contact between the attorney and the father in the father's official capacity. The attorney asked whether the firm could represent union members in City A in light of the father's employment.

The Panel opined that the attorney could represent the union in all matters except when the father is or may be involved in such matters. It reasoned that although Rule 1.8(i) applies to related lawyers who are in different firms, the same rule applies by analogy here. Rule 1.8(i) bars a lawyer from representing a client in a matter where the lawyer knows that the lawyer's parent, child, sibling, or spouse is the lawyer representing an adverse party, except upon the client's consent after consultation about the relationship. The Panel explained that the rule reflects the perception that representation of opposing interests by closely related lawyers risks the inadvertent breach of client confidences, focusing on direct conflicts rather than conflicts that might materially limit the representation.

The Panel cautioned the attorney that, while the analysis (with reference to Rule 1.10) suggested the law partner might appear before the father, the attorney should avoid even the appearance of professional impropriety as stated in the Preamble. It limited its guidance to the Rules of Professional Conduct and not the State Ethics Code or other laws.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996 (Opinion 96-11, issued June 13, 1996), after the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 15, 1988, and it applies Rule 1.8(i) and Rule 1.10 as they stood at the time. The Rhode Island Supreme Court later revised the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2007 as part of the nationwide Ethics 2000 process, which moved the related-lawyers conflict provision. 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 represent clients before a board my parent sits on?

A: The Panel said the attorney could represent the union except in matters where the father is or may be involved, applying Rule 1.8(i) by analogy even though the father was not opposing counsel.

Q: Why apply Rule 1.8(i) when the father is not a lawyer on the other side?

A: The Panel applied the rule "by analogy," reasoning that its concern (the risk that closely related people on opposing sides could inadvertently breach client confidences) fit the situation.

Q: Was there any additional caution?

A: Yes. The Panel cautioned the attorney to avoid even the appearance of professional impropriety, quoting the Preamble, even where the analysis suggested the partner might appear before the father.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Rhode Island Rule of Professional Conduct 1.8(i) (representing a client where a close relative represents an adverse party), with reference to Rule 1.10 (imputed disqualification) and the Preamble, the analogs of Model Rules 1.8 and 1.10. The Panel extended Rule 1.8(i)'s related-lawyers principle by analogy to a lawyer's parent serving as an adjudicator, carving out only matters in which the father is or may be involved.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.8 / RI RPC 1.8(i) (representation where a parent, child, sibling, or spouse represents an adverse party)
• MR 1.10 / RI RPC 1.10 (imputed disqualification)
• Preamble to the RI Rules of Professional Conduct (appearance of impropriety)

Other references:

• Annotated Model Rules of Professional Conduct, 2nd ed., p. 154 (1992)

See also

• RI EAP Opinion 91-19: related lawyers on opposing sides need consent, conflict not imputed under Rule 1.8(i)
• RI EAP Opinion 96-02: no conflict in suing an employer where the lawyer's spouse is a supervisor

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%2096-11.pdf

Original opinion text

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

ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
OPINION 96-11, - REQUEST # 658
Issued - June 13, 1996

FACTS:

The inquiring attorney and his/her law partner represent a union in various legal matters including collective bargaining agreements and the grievance process.

The inquiring attorney's father is currently employed in a Supervisory capacity with City A. As part of his employment, Father is a member of a trial board in City A. This board decides matters relating to disciplinary complaints against union members. The inquiring attorney contemplates providing legal services to union members regarding disciplinary complaints which would result in direct contact between the inquiring attorney and his/her father in his official capacity.

ISSUES PRESENTED:

Whether the inquiring attorney's law firm can represent union members in City A in light of Father's employment with City A.

OPINION:

The inquiring attorney can represent the union in all matters except when his/her father is or may be involved in such matters.

REASONING:

Although Rule 1.8(i) applies to related lawyers who are in different firms, the Panel believes that this same rule applies by analogy to the situation described above. Rule 1.8(i) states the following:

(i) A lawyer shall not represent a client in any matter where the lawyer knows that the lawyer's parent, child, sibling, or spouse is the lawyer representing an adverse party to the transaction except upon consent by the client after consultation regarding this relationship.

This rule reflects the perception that representation of opposing interests by closely related lawyers risks the inadvertent breach of client confidences. The focus of the rule is on direct conflicts rather than conflicts which might materially limit the lawyer's representation. See, Annotated Model Rules of Professional Conduct, 2nd ed. p. 154 (1992). This concern regarding [Rule] 1.10. Although the Rule and the comments suggest that the law partner may appear before the father, the Panel cautions the inquiring attorney that "[a] lawyer should avoid even the appearance of professional impropriety" which is stated in the Rule's Preamble.

The Panel's guidance is restricted to interpretations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and does not extend to issues under the State Ethics Code or any other rules, regulations or laws that may have a bearing on the issues raised by this inquiry.