I moved firms and want to sue a school district that is my old firm's client, but I never worked on its matters there. Does Rule 1.9 disqualify me?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney formerly worked at a law firm that represents school districts, including in special education disputes. At that firm the attorney did not work on any special education matters; instead he or she provided legal research to partners in a supporting role, handled public records requests, and occasionally appeared at hearings. Now at a new firm, the attorney wants to represent a guardian in a special education dispute against a school district (the "Town") that was a client of the former firm during the attorney's tenure. The attorney reports handling no matters for the Town and having no independent knowledge of the client's matter.

The panel concluded the attorney is not prohibited from taking the representation. The inquiry implicates Rule 1.9, and the panel focused on Rule 1.9(b), which disqualifies a migrating lawyer only when three elements are met: (1) the matter is the same or substantially related to one in which the former firm represented a client; (2) the former client's interests are materially adverse to the prospective client's; and (3) the lawyer acquired information about the former client protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c) that is material to the matter. The prohibition can be overcome only by the former client's written informed consent.

The panel found that while the Client's and Town's interests are necessarily adverse, it was unclear whether the matters were the same or substantially related. It did not need to resolve that, because the third element could not be met: the attorney never handled the Town's matters and had no independent knowledge of the case. Citing Comment [5] (Rule 1.9(b) disqualifies "only when the lawyer involved has actual knowledge of information protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c)") and Opinion 2012-07 (the test is not whether the lawyer remembers the case but whether the lawyer actually acquired material information at the former firm), the panel concluded the attorney may represent the Client without the Town's consent (citing Ops. 97-10 and 94-71).

In practice

Under this opinion, a lawyer who changes firms is not disqualified from opposing a former firm's client merely because the firm represented that client while the lawyer was there. The panel held that Rule 1.9(b) disqualifies the migrating lawyer only when the lawyer actually acquired protected information material to the matter, so a lawyer who never worked on the former client's matters and has no actual knowledge of the case may take an adverse representation without the former client's written informed consent.

Common questions

Q: I switched firms. Can I oppose a client my old firm represented?

A: The panel said yes, where you never worked on that client's matters and acquired no protected information material to the case. Rule 1.9(b) turns on actual knowledge, not mere prior employment at the firm.

Q: Does it matter that the two matters might be related?

A: The panel did not need to decide whether the matters were substantially related, because the disqualification failed at the separate element requiring that the lawyer actually acquired material protected information, which the lawyer did not.

Q: Is remembering the case the test?

A: No. Quoting Opinion 2012-07, the panel said the test is not whether the lawyer remembers the case, client, or facts, but whether the lawyer actually acquired material information while at the former firm.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rule 1.9 (Model Rule 1.9, duties to former clients), specifically Rule 1.9(b), which addresses a lawyer who moves from a firm that represented a client. Its three elements (same or substantially related matter, material adversity, and the lawyer's actual acquisition of information protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c) that is material to the matter) must all be met, and can be waived only by the former client's written informed consent. Comment [5] confines the disqualification to lawyers with actual knowledge of protected information.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.9 (duties to former clients)
• MR 1.6 (confidentiality of information; referenced within Rule 1.9(b))
• RI RPC 1.9, 1.6

Statutes:

• None cited.

Cases:

• None cited.

Other opinions cited:

• RI EAP Op. 2012-07 (Rule 1.9(b) is met only if the lawyer actually acquired material information at the former firm, not whether the lawyer remembers the case)
• RI EAP Op. 97-10 (former-client disqualification analysis)
• RI EAP Op. 94-71 (former-client disqualification analysis)

See also

• RI EAP Op. 2012-07: Actual Knowledge Test for a Migrating Lawyer
• RI EAP Op. 2024-12: Testifying About a Former Client
• ABA Formal Op. 510: Avoiding Imputation of a Prospective-Client Conflict

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-2025-05.pdf

Original opinion text

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

Rhode Island Supreme Court
Ethics Advisory Panel Op. 2025-5
Issued May 8, 2025

FACTS

The inquiring attorney formerly worked for a law firm that represents school districts in a variety of legal matters, including disputes relating to special education. The inquiring attorney did not participate in any special education matters during his or her time at the firm; rather, he or she provided legal research to partners in a supporting role, handled public records requests, and occasionally appeared at hearings and other proceedings on behalf of clients.

Now at a new firm, the inquiring attorney wishes to represent parents and guardians in special education disputes with school districts. He or she has received a client referral, of a guardian concerned that his or her grandchild's educational rights are being violated (the "Client"). The school district in question (the "Town") is currently a client of the inquiring attorney's former firm and was so during the inquiring attorney's tenure there. The inquiring attorney reports that he or she did not handle any matters for the Town during his or her time at the former law firm and has no independent knowledge of the Client's matter.

ISSUE PRESENTED

The inquiring attorney asks whether he or she is prohibited under the Rules of Professional Conduct from representing the Client?

OPINION

It is the Panel's opinion that the inquiring attorney is not prohibited under the Rules of Professional Conduct from representing the Client.

REASONING

This inquiry implicates Rule 1.9, pertaining to duties to former clients:

(a) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.

(b) A lawyer shall not knowingly represent a person in the same or a substantially related matter in which a firm with which the lawyer formerly was associated had previously represented a client:

(1) whose interests are materially adverse to that person; and

(2) about whom the lawyer had acquired information protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c) that is material to the matter;

unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.

(c) A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter or whose present or former firm has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter:

(1) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client, or when the information has become generally known; or

(2) reveal information relating to the representation except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client.

Of particular relevance to here is Rule 1.9(b), which prohibits an attorney from representing a prospective client when three (3) factors are met. First, the matter must be the same or substantially related to one in which the attorney's former firm had previously represented a client. Second, the former client's interests must be materially adverse to those of the prospective client. Third, the attorney must have acquired information about the former client protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c) that is material to the matter. The prohibition in Rule 1.9(b) may only be overcome by obtaining the written informed consent of the former client.

While there is no question that the Client's and Town's interests are necessarily adverse given the nature of the parties' dispute regarding the Client's grandchild's educational rights, it is unclear from the facts as described by the inquiring attorney whether the Client's matter is the same or substantially related to one in which the inquiring attorney's former firm represented the Town. Even if it is, however, the facts indicate that the inquiring attorney never handled any matters for the Town during his or her time at the former firm, including the Client's case, and has no independent knowledge of the matter. Therefore, the third element cannot be met. See Rule 1.9, Comment [5] (recognizing that "Paragraph (b) operates to disqualify the lawyer only when the lawyer involved has actual knowledge of information protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c)"); see also Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Op. 2012-07 (observing that "[t]he test for [this element] is not whether an attorney remembers the case, the client, or the specific facts of the case. Rather, the requirement . . . is met if the lawyer ha[s] actually acquired material information while at the former law firm").

Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the inquiring attorney may represent the Client without needing to obtain the informed written consent of the Town. See Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Op. 97-10; Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Op. 94-71.