I once represented a husband and wife; now the wife is my current client's adversary in a matter about the same property. May I continue?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney sought advice about representing a present client where the attorney had previously represented that client and his wife in a prior matter. The wife is now the adverse party in the present matter. The panel found that the present matter is substantially related to the prior matter because both relate to the parties' interest in the same real estate.

The panel took the position that Rhode Island Rule 1.9(a) applies. That rule provides that a lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client consents. Because those conditions were met, the panel concluded that the attorney cannot continue to represent the present client unless the former client consents after consultation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1992, 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, which amended Rule 1.9. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: When is a new matter "substantially related" to a prior one for conflict purposes?

A: Per the opinion, the matters were substantially related because both related to the parties' interest in the same real estate.

Q: Can I keep representing my current client against a former client in a substantially related matter?

A: Per the opinion, not unless the former client consents after consultation, because Rule 1.9(a) applies.

Q: Does it matter that I previously represented the now-adverse party jointly with my current client?

A: Per the opinion, the prior joint representation made the wife a former client, so her adverse interest in the substantially related matter triggers Rule 1.9(a).

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rhode Island Rule 1.9(a) (duties to former clients), corresponding to Model Rule 1.9. Rule 1.9(a) bars a lawyer who formerly represented a client from representing another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the former client, unless the former client consents. The panel applied that rule directly, treating the shared interest in the same real estate as establishing the substantial relationship.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.9 (duties to former clients)
• RI RPC 1.9(a)

Statutes:

• None cited.

Cases:

• None cited.

Other opinions cited:

• None cited.

See also

• RI EAP Op. 92-19: No 1.9 Conflict If the Matters Are Unrelated, but Get Consent
• RI EAP Op. 2019-02: No Conflict Representing Buyer Against a Former Corporate Client Not Related
• RI EAP Op. 2023-13: Lawyer Joining a Firm Adverse to a Former Client

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%2092-15.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 #92-15, Request #205
Issued May 5, 1992

An attorney seeks Panel advice regarding the representation of a present client when the attorney had previously represented the client and his wife in a prior matter. The wife now is the adverse party in the present matter. It appears to the Panel that the present matter is substantially related to the prior matter in that both matters relate to the parties' interest in the same real estate.

The Panel is of the opinion that Rhode Island Rules of Professional Conduct 1.9(a) applies, which states that a lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client consents to such. Therefore, the Panel is of the opinion that the attorney cannot continue to represent a present client unless the former client consents after consultation.