I'm a part-time municipal court judge and a partner at my law firm. My municipality just did a property revaluation, taxpayers are asking my firm to handle their appeals, and I want to appeal my own valuation too. Any conflict?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney was a part-time municipal court judge and a partner in a law firm. After the municipality where the attorney served as judge underwent a property revaluation, taxpayers asked whether the firm would represent them in contesting their revaluations, and the attorney also wanted to contest a personal revaluation. The attorney described the appeal process: an informal meeting with the revaluation company, then appeal to the tax assessor, then to the tax assessment board of review, and finally, if unsuccessful, a Superior Court lawsuit. The municipal court itself has no role in that process.

On contesting a personal revaluation, the panel found nothing in the Rules of Professional Conduct or the Code of Judicial Conduct that would prohibit it. On the firm representing other property owners, the panel applied Rule 1.10(a), which imputes to other firm lawyers any disqualification one lawyer would have under Rules 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, or 2.2, and Rule 1.10(d), which allows the affected client to waive the disqualification under Rule 1.7's conditions. The panel cited its own prior Opinion 1999-03, where a part-time probate judge was permitted to represent clients before the municipality's zoning boards under Rule 1.7(b), conditioned on a reasonable belief that responsibilities to the municipality would not adversely affect the representation and the clients' consent after full disclosure.

Because the revaluation appeal process runs through the tax assessor and the tax assessment review board, with the municipal court having no jurisdiction over it, the panel found the firm could represent property owners, including the inquiring attorney, in those appeals, subject to Rule 1.7(b)'s reasonable-belief and full-disclosure-consent requirements.

In practice

The opinion holds that, under the Rhode Island rules as they stood at the time of the opinion, a part-time municipal judge's personal or firm-wide involvement in a matter outside the municipal court's own jurisdiction, here property revaluation appeals routed through the tax assessor and review board, does not by itself create a Rule 1.7 conflict. The opinion conditions the firm's representation of other property owners on the Rule 1.7(b) reasonable-belief finding and full-disclosure consent from each client, consistent with the panel's approach in its earlier Opinion 1999-03 for a part-time probate judge representing clients before zoning boards.

Common questions

Q: Can I, as a part-time municipal judge, contest my own property tax revaluation in the town where I sit?

A: Yes. The panel found nothing in the Rules of Professional Conduct or the Code of Judicial Conduct that would prohibit it.

Q: Can my law firm represent other taxpayers in the same revaluation appeals?

A: Yes, subject to conditions. The panel held the firm may do so under Rule 1.7(b) if the lawyers reasonably believe the representation will not be adversely affected and the clients consent after full disclosure.

Q: Does it matter that the appeals go through the tax assessor and review board rather than the municipal court?

A: Yes, that was central to the analysis. The panel emphasized the municipal court has no jurisdiction over property revaluation appeals, which supported its conclusion that the judge's court role did not itself bar the firm's representation.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rule 1.7(b) (Conflict of Interest: General Rule), the Model Rule counterpart of the same number, quoted as barring representation materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client or third person absent a reasonable belief the representation will not be adversely affected and the client's consent after consultation. It also applies Rule 1.10 (Imputed Disqualification: General Rule), quoting subsection (a) on imputing a disqualified lawyer's conflict to the firm and subsection (d) on waiver under Rule 1.7's conditions.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.7(b) (Conflict of Interest: General Rule) / RI Rule 1.7(b)
• MR 1.10(a), (d) (Imputed Disqualification: General Rule) / RI Rule 1.10(a), (d)

Other opinions cited:

• R.I. Ethics Advisory Panel Op. 1999-03: a part-time probate judge could represent clients before the municipality's zoning boards under Rule 1.7(b)

See also

• Alabama State Bar Op. 1999-03: Law Partners of Substitute Municipal Judge May Represent Clients in Municipal Court
• RI EAP Op. 2002-06: Serving as Town Moderator Does Not Bar Representing Clients Before the Town Council or Boards

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%202003-03.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

Final

                        Rhode Island Supreme Court
           Ethics Advisory Panel Opinion 2003-03 Request No. 863
                            Issued June 19, 2003

Facts:

   The inquiring attorney is a part-time municipal court judge and also a partner in a

law firm The municipality where he/she is a judge recently underwent a property
revaluation. The inquiring attorney has received inquiries from taxpayers concerning
whether his/her law firm will represent them in connection with contesting their property
revaluations. The inquiring attorney also intends to contest his/her property revaluation.

    The inquiring attorney describes the procedure for contesting a property

revaluation in the municipality as follows: A property owner first seeks an informal
meeting with the revaluation company in an effort to lower the valuation. If
unsuccessful, the property owner then may appeal to the tax assessor, and then to the tax
assessment board of review. If unsuccessful at each of those levels, a property owner
may file a lawsuit in the Superior Court to contest the valuation. The municipal court has
no role in this process.

Issues Presented:

   The inquiring attorney asks whether there is a conflict of interest under the Rules

of Professional Conduct (a) if the inquiring attorney contests his/her property
revaluation, and (b) if the inquiring attorney’s law firm represents property owners,
including the inquiring attorneys, in connection with contesting the revaluation of
property located in the municipality where the inquiring attorney is the municipal court
judge.

Opinion:

    (a) The Rules of Professional Conduct do not prohibit the inquiring attorney from

contesting the property revaluation of his/her property in the municipality where he/she is
the municipal court judge. (b) The inquiring attorney’s law firm may represent property
owners, including the inquiring attorney, in the appeals of the revaluation of their
properties located in the municipality where the inquiring attorney is the municipal court
judge so long as, in compliance with Rule 1.7(b), the lawyers reasonably believe that the
representation will not be adversely affected, and the clients consent after full disclosure.
2003-03
Page 2

Reasoning:

    The Panel sees nothing in the Rules of Professional Conduct or the Code of

Judicial Conduct which would prohibit the inquiring attorney from contesting his/her
own property revaluation in the municipality where he/she is the municipal court judge.

   Whether the inquiring attorney’s law firm is permitted to represent property

owners in connection with contesting their property revaluations is governed by Rule
1.10 which states in pertinent part:

             Rule 1.10. Imputed disqualification: General rule. (a)
           While lawyers are associated in a firm, none of them shall
           knowingly represent a client when any one of them
           practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by
           Rules 1.7, 1.8, 1.9 or 2.2.

                                   ***

            (d) A disqualification prescribed by this rule may be
           waived by the affected client under the conditions stated in
           Rule 1.7.

    Under Rule 1.10(a), if the inquiring attorney is disqualified, the disqualification is

imputed to other lawyers in his/her law firm. In Ethics Advisory Panel Opinion 1999-03,
the Panel stated that a part time probate judge was permitted to represent clients before
the municipality’s zoning boards as long as, in accordance with Rule 1.7(b), he/she
reasonably believes that his/her responsibilities to the municipality will not adversely
affect the representation, and the clients consent after full disclosure. Rule 1.7(b)
provides:

             (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 . . .

   In the instant inquiry, the appeal process is before the municipality’s tax assessor

and tax assessment review board. The municipal court has no jurisdiction over property
revaluation appeals. The Panel is of the opinion that the inquiring attorney would be
permitted to represent property owners in the appeals of their property revaluations,
2003-03
Page 2

subject to Rule 1.7(b). Accordingly, the inquiring attorney’s law firm may represent
property owners, including the inquiring attorney, in the appeals of the revaluation of

their properties located in the municipality where the inquiring attorney is the municipal
court judge so long as, in compliance with Rule 1.7(b), the lawyers reasonably believe
that the representation will not be adversely affected, and the clients consent after full
disclosure.

    The Panel’s guidance is restricted to interpretations of the Rules of Professional

Conduct and does not extend to issues under the Code of Judicial Conduct, the State
Ethics Code, or any other rules, regulations or laws that may have bearing on the issues
raised by this inquiry.