I share office space with a lawyer who is also a city council member. Does that bar me from practicing before that city's municipal entities?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney shares office space for the practice of law with an attorney who is also a member of a city council. The inquiring attorney asks whether the office-sharing creates a conflict of interest if the attorney practices before any municipal entity of the same city, advising the panel that the stationery, malpractice insurance policies, and bank accounts are separate for each attorney.

The panel addressed Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads) and concluded that the described office-sharing arrangement does not constitute a "law firm," based on the attorney's representations that the insurance policies, bank accounts, and stationery will not confuse or mislead the public and that each attorney explicitly holds himself or herself out as an independent practitioner.

The panel also quoted the comment to Rule 1.10 (imputed disqualification: general rule), which states that whether two or more lawyers constitute a firm can depend on the specific facts, and that two practitioners who share office space and occasionally consult or assist each other ordinarily would not be regarded as a firm. The panel concluded that the arrangement is not a law firm and that, as a result, the attorney is not disqualified from practicing before the city's municipal entities, cross-referencing the Disciplinary Board Policy on rules relating to attorneys sharing office space.

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 Rules 1.10 and 7.5 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 these rules. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 sharing office space make my office-mate and me a "firm" for conflict purposes?

A: Per the opinion, not on these facts; two practitioners who share office space and occasionally consult or assist each other ordinarily would not be regarded as a firm, per the Rule 1.10 comment.

Q: What facts led the panel to find no firm here?

A: Per the opinion, the separate stationery, malpractice insurance policies, and bank accounts, and each attorney holding out as an independent practitioner, so the arrangement will not confuse or mislead the public.

Q: Am I disqualified from practicing before the city where my office-mate is a council member?

A: Per the opinion, no; because the arrangement is not a law firm, the attorney is not disqualified from practicing before the city's municipal entities.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rhode Island Rule 7.5 (firm names and letterheads) and the comment to Rule 1.10 (imputed disqualification), corresponding to the same-numbered Model Rules. The panel treated the "firm" determination as fact-specific: separate finances, separate stationery, and independent holding-out meant the office-sharing lawyers were not a firm, so no imputation reached the office-mate. It also referenced the Disciplinary Board's policy on attorneys sharing office space.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.10 (imputation of conflicts of interest: general rule)
• MR 7.5 (firm names and letterheads)
• RI RPC 1.10, 7.5

Statutes:

• None cited.

Cases:

• None cited.

Other opinions cited:

• Disciplinary Board Policy: Rules Relating to Attorneys Sharing Office Space (referenced as an attachment).

See also

• RI EAP Op. 91-43: Office-Sharing Lawyers on Opposite Sides Must One Withdraw
• RI EAP Op. 2018-02: Office-Sharing Lawyers Who Share a Secretary Are One Firm for Conflicts
• RI EAP Op. 88-05: Shared Office Space and "Law Offices" Stationery

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%2092-33.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 #92-33, Request #252
Issued July 23, 1992

An attorney seeks Panel advice concerning the attorney's ethical obligations under circumstances where the attorney shares office space for the practice of law with an attorney who is also a member of a city council. The attorney's concern is whether the office sharing with this attorney creates a conflict of interest if the attorney practices before any municipal entity of the same city. The attorney advises the Panel that the stationery, malpractice insurance policies and bank accounts are separate for each attorney.

Rule 7.5 entitled "Firm Names and Letterheads" addresses the limitations of attorneys when naming a law firm. The described office sharing arrangement does not constitute a "law firm." The Panel bases its position upon the attorney's representations that the insurance policies, bank accounts and stationery will not confuse or mislead the public. Furthermore, each attorney explicitly holds himself/herself out as independent practitioners.

In addition, the comments to Rule 1.10 "Imputed Disqualification: General Rule" states that:

Whether two or more lawyers constitute a firm within this definition can depend on the specific facts. . . . two practitioners who share office space and occasionally consult or assist each other ordinarily would not be regarded as constituting a firm.

The Panel believes that the described office sharing arrangement is not a law firm. As a result, the attorney is not disqualified from practicing law before the city's municipal entities pursuant to the Rules. See also attached copy of Disciplinary Board Policy: Rules Relating to Attorneys Sharing Office Space.