I was retained on a contingent fee to advise a pro se litigant, but the client has vanished and missed discovery. I never entered an appearance. Do I have to, and what do I tell the court?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney sought advice concerning the attorney's ethical obligations to the court and the client where the attorney had been retained on a contingent-fee basis to advise a pro se litigant who could not be located and had failed to comply with discovery requests. The attorney advised the panel that the attorney had not entered an appearance or signed any pleadings.

The panel took the position that the attorney has no duty to enter an appearance on behalf of this client because the client cannot be located. The panel added that it would be appropriate for the attorney to inform the court of the situation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1991, after the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 15, 1988. The Rhode Island Supreme Court later revised the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2007 as part of the nationwide Ethics 2000 process, which renumbered and amended several provisions. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Must a lawyer enter an appearance for a client who has disappeared?

A: Under this opinion, no. The panel concluded the attorney has no duty to enter an appearance because the client cannot be located.

Q: What should the lawyer tell the court?

A: The panel said it would be appropriate for the attorney to inform the court of the situation.

Q: Did the limited, advice-only scope of the engagement matter?

A: The panel noted the attorney had not entered an appearance or signed pleadings, and on those facts concluded no duty to appear arose when the client could not be located.

Background and rules framework

The opinion does not cite a Rule of Professional Conduct by number. It addresses the scope of an attorney's obligations to the court and client where the attorney was retained only to advise a pro se litigant who then could not be located, concluding that no duty to enter an appearance arose and that informing the court would be appropriate.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• The opinion cites no Rule of Professional Conduct by number.

Statutes:

• None cited.

Cases:

• None cited.

Other opinions cited:

• None cited.

See also

• RI EAP Op. 95-24: Obligations to a Missing Client
• RI EAP Op. 95-39: Duties When a Client Can't Be Located

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%2091-16.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 #91-16, Request #123
Issued May 23, 1991

An attorney seeks Panel advice concerning the attorney's ethical obligations to the court and the client under circumstances in which the attorney has been retained on a contingent fee basis to advise a pro-se litigant who cannot be located and has failed to comply with discovery requests. The attorney advises the Panel that the attorney has not entered an appearance or signed any pleadings.

The Panel takes the position that the attorney has no duty to enter an appearance on behalf of this client because the client cannot be located. The Panel is of the opinion that it would be appropriate for the attorney to inform the court of this situation.

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.