Can I hand my client the insurance settlement check when I'm worried the client's later testimony might turn out to be fraudulent?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney asked about the delivery of an insurance company's check to a client. The check was issued pursuant to a pre-trial order in a Workers' Compensation claim, which remains in effect. The attorney's concern was with subsequent testimony given by the client that might be determined to be groundless or fraudulent.

The panel took the position that the attorney may deliver the check to the client in light of Rule 1.2(d), which provides that a lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, but may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good-faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning, or application of the law.

The panel found that, on the facts set forth, the attorney had no knowledge of and did not assist in any possible fraud. It also found that the attorney had taken reasonable steps and provided a reasonable opportunity to opposing counsel to have the pre-trial order modified.

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 1.2(d) 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 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can I deliver the settlement check to my client?

A: Per the opinion, yes, under Rule 1.2(d), given that the attorney had no knowledge of and did not assist in any possible fraud.

Q: What made the delivery permissible despite the fraud concern?

A: Per the opinion, the attorney had no knowledge of any fraud and did not assist it, and had taken reasonable steps to give opposing counsel a reasonable opportunity to have the pre-trial order modified.

Q: What does Rule 1.2(d) prohibit?

A: Per the opinion, it prohibits counseling or assisting a client in conduct the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, while allowing the lawyer to discuss the legal consequences and to help the client make a good-faith effort to determine the law's validity, scope, meaning, or application.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rhode Island Rule 1.2(d) (scope of representation, criminal or fraudulent conduct), corresponding to Model Rule 1.2(d). The rule bars assisting known criminal or fraudulent conduct but permits advising on legal consequences and good-faith challenges to the law. The panel turned on the attorney's lack of knowledge of any fraud and the reasonable steps taken to let opposing counsel seek modification of the pre-trial order.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.2 (scope of representation and allocation of authority)
• RI RPC 1.2(d)

Statutes:

• None cited.

Cases:

• None cited.

Other opinions cited:

• None cited.

See also

• RI EAP Op. 91-4: A Client Who Insists on Pleading Guilty Despite Maintaining Innocence
• RI EAP Op. 91-52: A Lawyer May but Need Not Report an Opposing Party's Perjury or Fraud
• RI EAP Op. 91-39: An Attorney Must Disclose an Adverse Change in Criminal Law to the Court

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%2092-18.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 #92-18, Request #231
Issued May 5, 1992

An attorney seeks Panel advice as to the delivery of an insurance company's check to a client. The check was issued pursuant to a pre-trial order in a Workers' Compensation claim, which remains in effect. The concern is with subsequent testimony given by a client which may be determined to be groundless or fraudulent.

The Panel is of the opinion that the attorney may deliver the check to the client in light of Rule 1.2(d) which provides that:

(d) A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law.

It appears from the facts set forth that the attorney had no knowledge of and did not assist in any possible fraud. Moreover, the attorney did take reasonable steps and provided reasonable opportunity to the opposing counsel to have the pre-trial order modified.