A current client wants me to represent him against his ex-wife in post-divorce Family Court proceedings. My ex-wife's sister happens to be another current client of mine in her own divorce matter, and she says representing her ex-brother-in-law would be a conflict. Is she right?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney had represented Client A for several years in business matters, but not in Client A's divorce two years earlier. Client A now asked the attorney to represent him on post-divorce issues raised by a Family Court motion filed by his former wife. Separately, before that divorce, the attorney had taken on Client B's own divorce, and currently represented Client B in post-judgment issues. Client B is Client A's former wife's sister, and Client B suggested representing her former brother-in-law would be a conflict of interest for the attorney.

The panel quoted Rule 1.7(a) and (b) in full: subsection (a) bars representation directly adverse to another client absent a reasonable belief the relationship will not be adversely affected and each client's consent after consultation; subsection (b) bars representation materially limited by responsibilities to another client or third person, subject to similar conditions. The panel explained Rule 1.7 applies where two concurrent clients' interests are directly adverse, or where representing one client is materially limited by responsibilities to another.

The panel found neither circumstance present. Client A and Client B were not themselves adverse to each other in any matter, and the fact that Client B's sister happened to be Client A's former wife did not create direct adversity between the attorney's two clients or materially limit either representation. The panel noted that Client B's sympathy for her sister, and any hard feelings toward the attorney for representing Client A against her sister, do not amount to a conflict of interest under the Rules of Professional Conduct.

In practice

The opinion holds that, under the Rhode Island rules as they stood at the time of the opinion, Rule 1.7 turns on whether the lawyer's own clients are directly adverse to each other or whether representing one materially limits representing the other, not on family relationships or personal sympathies among people connected to those clients. A client's relative being adverse to a co-client, without more, does not itself trigger Rule 1.7.

Common questions

Q: One of my clients wants me to represent him against his ex-wife. My ex-wife's sister happens to be my client in an unrelated matter. Is that a conflict?

A: Not under this opinion. The panel found no Rule 1.7 conflict because the attorney's two actual clients were not directly adverse to each other and neither representation was materially limited by responsibilities to the other.

Q: Does it matter that my client's relative might be upset about the representation?

A: No. The panel held that a client's sympathy for a relative, or hard feelings toward the lawyer over an unrelated representation, do not amount to a conflict of interest under Rule 1.7.

Q: What would actually create a Rule 1.7 problem in a scenario like this?

A: Direct adversity between the lawyer's own clients, or a situation where representing one client is materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to the other, per Rule 1.7(a) and (b) as quoted in the opinion.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rule 1.7(a), (b) (Conflict of Interest: General Rule), the Model Rule counterpart of the same number, quoted in full: the direct-adversity bar in subsection (a) and the material-limitation bar in subsection (b), each subject to a reasonable-belief finding and client consent after consultation.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

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

See also

• Alabama State Bar Op. 1991-40: No Conflict Created Through Kinship by Blood or Marriage Between Attorneys
• ABA Formal Op. 494: Conflicts Arising Out of a Lawyer's Personal Relationship With Opposing Counsel

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%202003-05.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 No. 2003-05 Request No. 866
                                Issued 11, 2003

Facts:

   The inquiring attorney has represented Client A for several years in various

business matters. Client A was divorced two years ago. The inquiring attorney did not
represent him in the divorce. Client A recently asked the inquiring attorney to represent
him on several post-divorce issues that are the subject of a motion filed against him in
Family Court by his former wife.

    Prior to the divorce, the inquiring attorney took on the representation of Client B

in a divorce proceeding, and currently is representing Client B in post-judgment issues.
Client B is Client A’s former wife’s sister. Client B has suggested that the inquiring
attorney would have a conflict of interest if he/she represented her former brother-in-law,
Client A, in his divorce-related motion.

Issue Presented:

   The inquiring attorney asks whether he/she has a conflict of interest if he/she

represents Client A in post-divorce issues against his former wife, who is the sister of
another client, Client B.

Opinion:

   The Panel concludes that there is no conflict of interest, and that the inquiring

attorney may represent Client A against his former wife who is Client B’s sister.

Reasoning:

  The general conflict of interest rule, Rule 1.7 of the Rules of Professional

Conduct, states as follows:

       (a) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of
       that client will be directly adverse to another client, unless:

2003-05
Page 2

           (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 applies where the interests of two concurrent clients are directly adverse,

or where the representation of one client is otherwise materially limited by a lawyer’s
responsibilities to another client. See Rule 1.7. Neither of these circumstances is
presented in this inquiry. No doubt Client B’s sympathies are with her sister. Whatever
hard feelings Client B may hold against the inquiring attorney for representing Client A
against her sister, do not amount to a conflict of interest for the inquiring attorney under
the Rules of Professional Conflict.

    The Panel concludes that the circumstances as presented do not constitute a

conflict of interest pursuant to Rule 1.7 and that the inquiring attorney may represent
Client A in the pending post-divorce motion.