An opinion from the Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel

Rhode Island Supreme Court
Ethics Advisory Panel Op. 2024-11
Issued November 14, 2024

FACTS
The inquiring attorney represents a client (“Client 1”) in a divorce proceeding. The lawyer for the opposing party in the divorce proceeding is also a probate judge before whom the inquiring attorney represents a different client (“Client 2”) as an heir against a surviving spouse in an unrelated contested matter.

ISSUE PRESENTED

The inquiring attorney asks whether a conflict of interest exists such that he or she must withdraw from representing Client 1 under the Rules of Professional Conduct?

OPINION

It is the Panel’s opinion that a conflict of interest does not exist, such that the inquiring attorney need not withdraw from representing either Client 1 or Client 2 under the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Reasoning

Pursuant to Rule 1.7(a), a concurrent conflict of interest exists when “the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client . . . [or when] there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person, or by a personal interest of the lawyer.” The Panel finds that under the facts as described by the inquiring attorney, no conflict of interest exists here. The interests of Client 1 and Client 2 are not directly adverse because they are unrelated parties involved in unrelated matters—one a divorce proceeding, the other a contested probate matter. See Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel Op. 2006-01 (determining that it was not a conflict of interest for the inquiring attorney to represent the driver and passenger of a car involved in a motor vehicle accident in unrelated matters because the parties’ interests were not directly adverse). Additionally, neither representation is materially limited by the inquiring attorney’s responsibilities to either Client 1 and Client 2 or any other party. See Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel Op. 2014-06 (finding that no conflict of interest existed between an attorney’s representation of a municipality in criminal matters as its solicitor and of private clients in criminal matters involving separate municipalities). Therefore, the inquiring attorney is under no obligation to withdraw from representing either Client 1 or Client 2.

(Mike Frisch)