I was associated with a lawyer's firm years ago. He still represents cases from that period as co-counsel with me, but a new client of his retained him four or five years after I left. Can I represent someone against that new client under Rule 1.9?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney was part of Lawyer L's firm for about 15 months beginning in early 1983. During that time he and Lawyer L represented an individual referred to as Mr. A. After the attorney left the firm, he continued to serve as co-counsel with Lawyer L on cases that had been commenced during his association with the firm, though he no longer had access to Lawyer L's offices, and Lawyer L inadvertently left the attorney's name on the firm's yellow-pages advertisement after their association ended. Mr. A recently asked the attorney to represent him against an individual referred to as Ms. B. While reviewing court records for routine matters, the attorney discovered that Ms. B had retained Lawyer L some four or five years after the attorney's own association with Lawyer L had ended.

The panel explained that Rule 1.9, "Conflict of Interest: Former Client," addresses the effect of a past attorney-client relationship on an attorney's subsequent representation of an adverse interest. Because the inquiring attorney was not associated with Lawyer L at the time Ms. B retained Lawyer L's services, the panel reasoned that Ms. B never became the inquiring attorney's own client, so Rule 1.9's provisions are not triggered by the attorney's proposed representation of Mr. A against her.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in January 1990, after the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 15, 1988, and it applies Rule 1.9 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Does Rule 1.9 bar me from suing someone represented by a lawyer I used to work with, if that person became his client after I left the firm?

A: Not under this opinion's reasoning. The panel held that because the inquiring attorney was not associated with Lawyer L when the adverse party retained Lawyer L's services, that party never became the inquiring attorney's own client, so Rule 1.9 is not activated.

Q: Does it matter that I still work as co-counsel with my former colleague on older cases?

A: The opinion recites this fact but does not treat it as changing the Rule 1.9 analysis; the panel's holding turns on whether the adverse party was ever the inquiring attorney's own client, which depends on the timing of when she retained Lawyer L relative to the attorney's association with the firm.

Q: What does Rule 1.9 actually cover?

A: Per the opinion, Rule 1.9, "Conflict of Interest: Former Client," addresses the effect of a past attorney-client relationship on the attorney's subsequent representation of an adverse interest.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rule 1.9 of the Rhode Island Rules of Professional Conduct, as adopted effective November 15, 1988, to an inquiry about whether an attorney may represent a client against a person who retained the attorney's former law firm colleague years after the attorney's own association with that colleague ended.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.9 (conflict of interest: former client)
• RI RPC 1.9, as adopted November 15, 1988

Statutes:

• None cited.

Cases:

• None cited.

Other opinions cited:

• None cited.

See also

• RI EAP Op. 89-06: Representing a Planning Board Member in a Boundary Dispute Against a Former Client Adversary
• ABA Formal Op. 497: Conflicts Involving Materially Adverse Interests
• ABA Formal Op. 479: The "Generally Known" Exception to Former-Client Confidentiality

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%2090-06.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 #90-6, REQUEST #77
Issued January 18, 1990

An attorney seeks Panel advice as to whether he may properly represent a certain individual.

The attorney advises the Panel that he was part of Lawyer L's firm for approximately 15 months beginning in early 1983. The attorney states that during this time he and Lawyer L represented an individual who we shall call Mr. A. The attorney states that after he left Lawyer L's firm he served as co-counsel with Lawyer L on several cases commenced during his association with the firm, but that he had no access to Lawyer L's offices. The attorney further advises the Panel that Lawyer L inadvertently failed to remove his name from his advertisement in the yellow pages of the telephone book when his association with Lawyer L ended.

The attorney states that Mr. A recently sought his services to represent him against an individual we shall call Ms. B. The attorney indicates that in pursuing some routine matters in the court records he uncovered the fact that Ms. B had retained his former associate, Lawyer L, some four or five years after his own association with Lawyer L came to an end.

Rule 1.9, entitled "Conflict of Interest: Former Client" addresses the effect of a past attorney-client relationship on the attorney's subsequent representation of an adverse interest. Since the attorney was not associated with Lawyer L when Ms. B retained Lawyer L's services, Ms. B never became the attorney's client and the provisions of Rule 1.9 thus are not activated. The Panel takes the position that the attorney may properly represent Mr. A in his suit against Ms. B.

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.