I believe two former government attorneys, now partners in private practice, have violated the revolving-door rule (1.11(a)). Am I required under Rule 8.3 to report them?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney believed that the conduct of two former government attorneys who were now partners in private practice violated Rule 1.11(a) of the Rhode Island Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct, the "revolving door" provision restricting a former government lawyer's later representation of private clients. The inquiring attorney asked whether he was required under Rule 8.3 to report the two attorneys' conduct.

The Panel answered that the inquiring attorney is not required to report a violation of Rule 1.11(a) unless he makes a subjective determination that the violation raises a substantial question as to the attorneys' honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness to practice law. It anchored that limit in Rule 8.3(a), which conditions the reporting duty on that substantial-question threshold.

The inquiring attorney had also asked the Panel to decide whether the two attorneys' conduct was in fact violative of Rule 1.11. The Panel declined to render an advisory opinion on that question, explaining that it seeks an opinion about the conduct of lawyers other than the inquirer, which the Panel does not address under Rhode Island Ethics Advisory Panel Rule 2(a).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996 (Opinion 96-30, issued November 14, 1996), after the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 15, 1988, and it applies Rules 8.3 and 1.11 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, and the reporting and former-government-lawyer rules have been amended since. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 every suspected rule violation by another lawyer have to be reported?

A: No. The Panel applied Rule 8.3(a), under which the duty to report arises only when the violation raises a substantial question as to the other lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness to practice law.

Q: Who decides whether the substantial-question threshold is met?

A: The inquiring attorney. The Panel framed it as a subjective determination the inquiring attorney must make about whether the alleged Rule 1.11(a) violation crosses that threshold.

Q: Would the Panel decide whether the two attorneys actually violated Rule 1.11?

A: No. The Panel declined to opine on the conduct of lawyers other than the inquirer, citing Rhode Island Ethics Advisory Panel Rule 2(a).

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Rhode Island Rule of Professional Conduct 8.3 (reporting professional misconduct), the analog of Model Rule 8.3, whose subsection (a) triggers a reporting duty only for violations raising a substantial question as to a lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness. The underlying conduct implicated Rule 1.11(a) (Model Rule 1.11), the successive-government-service or "revolving door" provision. Under Panel Rule 2(a), the Panel does not opine on the conduct of lawyers other than the inquirer, so it addressed only the inquirer's own reporting duty.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 8.3 / RI RPC 8.3(a) (reporting professional misconduct; substantial-question threshold)
• MR 1.11 / RI RPC 1.11(a) (former government lawyer; revolving-door restriction)

Other authorities:

• Rhode Island Ethics Advisory Panel Rule 2(a) (Panel does not opine on the conduct of lawyers other than the inquirer)

See also

• RI EAP Opinion 96-32: screening a former government lawyer under Rule 1.11(a) so a partner may continue a municipal review

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%2096-30.pdf

Original opinion text

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

ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
OPINION NO. 96-30, REQUEST NO. 691
Issued November 14, 1996

FACTS:

The inquiring attorney believes that the conduct of two former government attorneys who are now partners in private practice violates Rule 1.11(a) of the Rhode Island Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct.

ISSUE PRESENTED:

The inquiring attorney asks whether he/she is required under Rule 8.3 to report the conduct of the two attorneys.

OPINION and REASONING:

The inquiring attorney is not required to report a violation of Rule 1.11(a), unless the inquiring attorney makes a subjective determination that the violation raises a substantial question as to the attorneys' honesty, trustworthiness or fitness to practice law. See Rule 8.3(a).

In his/her request, the inquiring attorney described the specific conduct of the two attorneys and also asked the Panel whether the conduct was violative of Rule 1.11. Because that part of the request seeks an opinion about the conduct of lawyers other than the inquiring attorney, the Panel declines to render an advisory opinion on that question. See Rhode Island Ethics Advisory Panel Rule 2(a).