I'm a consulting attorney for a water district that has no affiliation with a town. One of the town's zoning board members also happens to be a commissioner of the water district. Can I still bring cases before that zoning board under Rule 1.7?

Plain-English summary

The attorney is employed on an hourly basis by an autonomous quasi-municipal corporation with authority to oversee water use within "Town T," referred to as the Water District. The Water District has authority to levy taxes and assess fees against water users in the town but is not associated with Town T in any way, and the attorney is paid as consulting attorney only, receiving no fringe benefits or other indicia of employee status. The attorney maintains a solo practice in another city and occasionally presents cases before Town T's Zoning Board of Review. One member of that Zoning Board, Mr. A, is also a commissioner of the Water District. The attorney asked whether he may present a case before the Zoning Board when Mr. A is seated as a member.

The panel quoted Rule 1.7(b), which bars a lawyer from representing a client if the representation may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a third person, or the lawyer's own interests, unless the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected and the client consents after consultation. Applying that rule to the facts described, the panel found that no inconsistencies arise among the attorney's obligations to his clients before the Zoning Board, his obligations to the Water District, and his own interests. On that basis the panel held Rule 1.7 does not apply to the circumstance described and that the attorney may properly represent clients before the Zoning Board.

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 1.7 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 1.7 bar me from appearing before a board whose member also serves at an entity I do consulting work for?

A: Not automatically. The panel held that because no inconsistencies arose among the attorney's obligations to his zoning-board clients, his obligations to the Water District, and his own interests, Rule 1.7 did not apply on these facts.

Q: What does Rule 1.7(b) require me to check for?

A: Per the opinion, Rule 1.7(b) bars representation that may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a third person, or the lawyer's own interests, unless the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected and the client consents after consultation.

Q: Does it matter that I'm paid only as a consulting attorney, not an employee, of the other entity?

A: The opinion recites this fact as part of the circumstances the attorney described, though the panel's stated holding turns on the absence of any inconsistency among the attorney's obligations, not specifically on his consulting (rather than employee) status.

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, governing conflicts arising from a lawyer's responsibilities to another client, a third person, or the lawyer's own interests, to an inquiry about appearing before a municipal board on which a member also serves as a commissioner of an unrelated entity the attorney consults for.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.7 (conflict of interest: general rule)
• RI RPC 1.7(b), as adopted November 15, 1988

Statutes:

• None cited.

Cases:

• None cited.

Other opinions cited:

• None cited.

See also

• RI EAP Op. 90-07: Free Consult Creates Rule 1.7 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%2090-11.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 #90-11, REQUEST #83
Issued January 18, 1990

An attorney seeks Panel advice as to whether it is permissible for him to bring a case before a certain town Zoning Board of Review under the circumstances he outlines.

The attorney advises the Panel that he is employed on an hourly basis by an autonomous quasi-municipal corporation which has authority to oversee water use within the town, "Town T," where it is situated. He states that this corporation, which we shall refer to as the Water District, has authority to levy taxes and assess fees against users of water within the town, but is not associated with Town T in any way. He stresses that he is paid for his services to the Water District as consulting attorney only and does not receive any fringe benefits or other indices of employee status.

The attorney states that he maintains an office as a sole practitioner in another city, and that occasionally he presents cases before Town T's Zoning Board of Review. He advises the Panel that one of the members of Town T's Zoning Board of Review, Mr. A, is also a commissioner on the Water District. He asks the Panel whether it is permissible for him to present a case before Town T's Zoning Board of Review when Mr. A is seated thereon as a member.

Rule 1.7, entitled "Conflict of Interest: General Rule," provides in pertinent part:

(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. * * *

In the situation the attorney has described, no inconsistencies arise among the attorney's obligations to his clients before the Zoning Board of Review, his obligations to the Water District and his own interests. The Panel therefore takes the position that Rule 1.7 does not apply to the circumstance the attorney has described and that he may properly represent clients before the Zoning Board.

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.