A bankruptcy trustee accuses me of malpractice in a concluded case, but has filed no suit, and my client wants me to keep representing him. Do I have a personal-interest conflict that forces me to withdraw?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney represented a client in a complicated federal bankruptcy matter that has concluded. The trustee appointed to represent the bankruptcy estate now claims the attorney committed malpractice during the representation and asserts that a conflict of interest requires the attorney to terminate his or her representation of the client. The attorney vigorously denies the claims, the client wants the attorney to continue, and, as reported, the trustee has not filed or initiated any malpractice suit or action.

The panel concluded no conflict exists. It applied Rule 1.7, focusing on Rule 1.7(a)(2), under which a conflict exists when there is a significant risk that the representation will be materially limited by a personal interest of the lawyer. The panel acknowledged that a lawyer's personal interest in avoiding or minimizing malpractice liability can, in appropriate circumstances, create a conflict, citing Comment [10]'s observation that if the probity of a lawyer's own conduct in a transaction is in serious question, it may be difficult or impossible to give a client detached advice.

Several factors, however, weighed against finding a conflict here. First, the malpractice allegation originated with a third party (the trustee) rather than the client, indicating the attorney's and client's interests are not adverse; the client wants the attorney to continue. Second, and more significantly, no malpractice suit or other action had been filed, so the attorney's potential liability was purely speculative and no conflict-causing "personal interest" presently existed.

The panel concluded that a bare malpractice allegation, absent the filing of a suit or other action, does not amount to a "personal interest" creating a conflict requiring withdrawal under Rule 1.7(a)(2). It reasoned that holding otherwise would endorse a form of legal coercion, where merely voicing a malpractice allegation could compel the termination of an attorney-client relationship.

In practice

Under this opinion, a Rhode Island lawyer accused of malpractice by a third party, with no suit or action filed, does not have a personal-interest conflict under Rule 1.7(a)(2) requiring withdrawal, particularly where the client wants the representation to continue. The panel held that potential liability remains speculative until a malpractice suit or action is actually filed, so a bare allegation alone does not compel termination of the representation.

Common questions

Q: Someone accuses me of malpractice. Must I withdraw from the client's case?

A: On these facts, no. The panel held that a bare malpractice allegation, with no suit or action filed, does not create a personal-interest conflict requiring withdrawal under Rule 1.7(a)(2), especially where the client wants you to continue.

Q: Does it matter that the accusation came from a third party rather than my client?

A: Yes. The panel found the allegation originating with a third party (the bankruptcy trustee) indicated the attorney's and client's interests were not adverse, and the client wanted the representation to continue.

Q: When would a malpractice issue become a conflict?

A: The panel indicated potential liability was speculative until a suit or other action is filed. It also noted, citing Comment [10], that a lawyer's interest in minimizing malpractice liability can create a conflict in appropriate circumstances where the lawyer's own conduct is seriously in question.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rule 1.7 (Model Rule 1.7, concurrent conflicts of interest), specifically Rule 1.7(a)(2), which treats a representation as conflicted when a significant risk exists that it will be materially limited by the lawyer's personal interest. Comment [10] recognizes that a lawyer's interest in the probity of his or her own conduct can impair detached advice, but the panel held that a bare, unfiled malpractice allegation from a third party does not rise to a present personal-interest conflict.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.7 (concurrent conflicts of interest)
• RI RPC 1.7

Statutes:

• None cited.

Cases:

• Markham Concepts, Inc. v. Hasbro, Inc., 196 F. Supp. 3d 345 (D.R.I. 2016), Rule 1.7 is grounded primarily in the attorney's duty of loyalty

Other opinions cited:

• None.

See also

• RI EAP Op. 2025-11: Settling a Client's Malpractice Claim
• RI EAP Op. 2024-11: No Conflict in Representing Clients in Unrelated Matters
• ABA Formal Op. 02-425: Arbitration of Fee Disputes and Malpractice Claims

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-2025-12.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. 2025-12
Issued October 9, 2025

FACTS

The inquiring attorney represented a client in a complicated federal bankruptcy matter that has since concluded. The client also faced certain related legal issues in Tennessee for which he consulted with local Tennessee counsel. The trustee appointed to represent the bankruptcy estate now claims that the inquiring attorney engaged in malpractice during the representation, such that a conflict of interest exists requiring the inquiring attorney to terminate his or her representation of the client. The inquiring attorney vociferously denies the trustee's claims. In addition, the client wishes for the inquiring attorney to continue to represent him or her. According to the inquiring attorney, the trustee has not currently filed or otherwise initiated a malpractice suit or action in furtherance of his or her claims.

ISSUE PRESENTED

The inquiring attorney asks whether a conflict of interest exists such that he or she must terminate his or her representation of the client?

OPINION

It is the Panel's opinion that a conflict of interest does not exist under the facts as described by the inquiring attorney.

REASONING

Rule 1.7 pertains to concurrent conflicts of interest:

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if:

(1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or

(2) 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.

(b) Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a client if:

(1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client;

(2) the representation is not prohibited by law;

(3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal; and

(4) each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.

"Rule 1.7 is grounded primarily upon the attorney's duty of loyalty to his or her client." Markham Concepts, Inc. v. Hasbro, Inc., 196 F. Supp. 3d 345, 349 (D.R.I. 2016) (interpreting Rhode Island Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7). "Resolution of a conflict of interest problem under this Rule requires the lawyer to: 1) clearly identify the client or clients; 2) determine whether a conflict of interest exists; 3) decide whether the representation may be undertaken despite the existence of a conflict, i.e., whether the conflict is consentable; and 4) if so, consult with the clients affected under paragraph (a) and obtain their informed consent, confirmed in writing." Rule 1.7, Comment [2].

The resolution of this inquiry turns on whether a conflict of interest exists between the inquiring attorney and his or her client. Relevant here is Rule 1.7(a)(2), which establishes in pertinent part that a conflict of interest exists when "there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by . . . a personal interest of the lawyer." In this case, the inquiring attorney has a personal interest in, among other things, avoiding or minimizing his or her malpractice liability. Such an interest can, under appropriate circumstances, create a conflict between the inquiring attorney's and client's interests. See Rule 1.7, Comment [10] (observing that "if the probity of a lawyer's own conduct in a transaction is in serious question, it may be difficult or impossible for the lawyer to give a client detached advice").

However, several factors militate against finding a conflict here. First, the malpractice allegations originate with a third party rather than the inquiring attorney's client, indicating that their interests are not adverse. Indeed, the inquiring attorney reports that the client wishes for him or her to continue in the representation. Second, and more significantly, no malpractice suit or other action has been filed against the inquiring attorney. Accordingly, his or her potential liability is purely speculative at this time, such that no conflict-causing "personal interest" presently exists.

The Panel therefore concludes that a bare malpractice allegation, absent the attendant filing of a suit or other action, does not amount to a "personal interest" creating a conflict of interest requiring withdrawal from a representation under Rule 1.7(a)(2). To find otherwise would be tantamount to endorsing a form of legal coercion where the mere voicing of a malpractice allegation is sufficient to compel the termination of an attorney-client relationship.