As a state agency staff attorney, I have a personal legal claim pending against one branch of a municipality, and I'm about to handle an agency litigation matter against a different branch of that same municipality. Do I have a conflict, and can I proceed with consent?

Plain-English summary

A staff attorney for a state agency asked the panel what steps she should take to avoid a conflict of interest. She advises the agency's hearing officers on legal issues, drafts documents consistent with their rulings, and represents the agency in related litigation. A matter was about to be heard against the respondent, a branch of a certain municipality, while the attorney separately had a personal claim pending that was due to be heard by a different branch of that same municipality. She asked, first, whether she should recuse herself from the case against the respondent branch, and second, whether it would be permissible for her to carry out her usual responsibilities if both parties consented after full disclosure. She stated that she believed her judgment and advice would be unbiased but was concerned about the appearance of impropriety.

The panel quoted Rule 1.7(b), which bars a lawyer from representing a client whose representation may be materially limited by the lawyer's own interests unless the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected and the client consents after consultation. The panel held that no conflict of interest arises provided the attorney makes full disclosure of her pending personal matter to all parties involved and obtains the consent mandated by Rule 1.7(b)(2). Upon obtaining that consent, the attorney may advise the state agency in her usual manner. The panel found the attorney's third and final query moot in light of this determination.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in June 1989, after the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 15, 1988, and it applies Rule 1.7(b) as originally adopted. The Rhode Island Supreme Court later revised the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2007 as part of the nationwide Ethics 2000 process. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Do I need to recuse myself if I have a personal claim pending against a related branch of the same government body I'm litigating against?

A: Not necessarily. The panel held that no conflict of interest arises provided the attorney makes full disclosure of her pending personal matter to all parties involved and obtains their consent under Rule 1.7(b)(2).

Q: What has to happen before I can proceed with both matters?

A: The opinion requires full disclosure of the pending personal matter to all parties involved, followed by their consent after consultation, per Rule 1.7(b)(2).

Q: Does my own belief that I can be unbiased resolve the conflict question?

A: The opinion does not rest the outcome on the attorney's own assessment of her impartiality; it grounds the result in the disclosure-and-consent requirement of Rule 1.7(b), even though the attorney stated she believed her judgment and advice would be unbiased.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rule 1.7(b) of the Rhode Island Rules of Professional Conduct, as adopted effective November 15, 1988, which addresses conflicts of interest arising from a lawyer's own personal interests, to a state agency staff attorney whose personal legal claim against one branch of a municipality overlapped in timing with her agency litigation duties against a different branch of the same municipality.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.7 (conflict of interest, general rule)
• RI RPC 1.7(b) (conflict of interest arising from the lawyer's own interests, as adopted November 15, 1988)

Statutes:

• None cited.

Cases:

• None cited.

Other opinions cited:

• None cited.

See also

• RI EAP Opinion 89-01: Associate Accepting Part-Time State Employment Defending Claims While the Firm Represents Claimants Under the Same Statute
• RI EAP Opinion 88-21: State Employee Lawyer Participating in a Public Employee Strike

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%2089-09.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

DIGEST OF ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
OPINION 89-9, REQUEST #51
Issued June 15, 1989

An attorney seeks Panel advice concerning what steps she should take to avoid a conflict of interest in the specific circumstances she describes. The attorney advises the Panel that she is a staff attorney serving a state agency. She explains that she provides advice to the agency's hearing officers on legal issues as needed, drafts documents consistent with their rulings, and represents the agency in related litigation. The attorney states that a matter will be heard shortly in which the respondent is a branch of a certain municipality. The attorney advises the Panel that she has a personal claim pending which is due to be heard by a different branch of the same municipality. The attorney asks, first, if she should recuse herself from the case against the respondent branch of the municipality in question. Second, the attorney asks the Panel if it is permissible for her to carry out her usual responsibilities if both parties consent to her participation after full disclosure. The attorney states that she believes her judgment and advice would be unbiased, but that she is concerned about the appearance of impropriety.

Rule 1.7(b), titled "Conflict of Interest: General Rule" provides, in pertinent part that:

(b) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited 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 . .

The Panel takes the position that no conflict of interest arises provided the attorney makes full disclosure of her pending personal matter to all parties involved, and obtains the consent mandated by Rule 1.7(b)(2). Thus, upon obtaining the consent of all parties involved the attorney may advise the state agency in her usual manner. The Panel finds that the attorney's third and final query is moot in light of this determination.

Ethics Advisory Panel advice is protective in nature. There is no requirement that an attorney abide by a Panel opinion, but if he or she does, he or she is fully protected from any charge of impropriety.