I investigated a lawsuit as a public agency's investigator, not its lawyer. Now as an attorney elsewhere, can I represent the plaintiffs against that agency?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney was employed as an investigator by Agency A, a public agency. While so employed, Agency A (with Agencies B, C, and D) became a defendant in a lawsuit, and Agency A assigned the attorney to investigate the allegations, giving the attorney personal knowledge of the case. Some issues were resolved; in partial settlement, the plaintiffs and Agency B drafted a consent decree that the court approved, though the claims against Agency A remain unresolved. The attorney, having left Agency A, is now employed as an attorney at Agency X, which represents the private plaintiffs, and the attorney wishes to represent the plaintiffs in enforcing the consent decree between the plaintiffs and Agency B. The attorney notes that as an investigator the attorney had no attorney-client relationship with Agency A.

The panel explained that Rule 1.11(a) contains a broad prohibition barring former government officials from representing clients in matters related to their government service: except as law may expressly permit, a lawyer shall not represent a private client in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated as a public officer or employee. The comment states the rule was designed to prevent a lawyer from exploiting public office for the advantage of a private client.

The panel concluded that the rule plainly prohibits the inquiring attorney from representing a private client where, as here, the representation involves a matter in which the lawyer participated as a public official. The panel also advised that if attorneys associated with the inquiring attorney undertake the plaintiffs' representation, they must comply with the screening and notice requirements of Rule 1.11(a)(1) and (2).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1992 (Opinion 92-39), after the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 15, 1988, and it applies Rule 1.11 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 Rule 1.11 (successive government and private employment). 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: I was only an investigator, not the agency's lawyer. Does Rule 1.11 still apply?

A: Per the opinion, yes; Rule 1.11(a) bars representing a private client in a matter in which the lawyer participated as a public officer or employee, and the panel applied it despite the absence of an attorney-client relationship with the agency.

Q: What is Rule 1.11 designed to prevent?

A: Per the opinion, the comment explains the rule was designed to prevent a lawyer from exploiting public office for the advantage of a private client.

Q: Can my colleagues take the case if I am barred?

A: Per the opinion, associated attorneys who undertake the representation must comply with the screening and notice requirements of Rule 1.11(a)(1) and (2).

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rhode Island Rule 1.11 (successive government and private employment), corresponding to Model Rule 1.11. The panel read Rule 1.11(a) as a broad, participation-based bar keyed to the lawyer's role as a public officer or employee rather than to any attorney-client relationship, and applied Rule 1.11(a)(1)-(2) to permit an associated firm's representation only with screening and notice.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.11 (successive government and private employment)
• RI RPC 1.11(a), 1.11(a)(1)-(2)

Statutes:

• None cited.

Cases:

• None cited.

Other opinions cited:

• None cited.

See also

• RI EAP Op. 91-51: Successive Government Practice, the Firm, and the One-Year Bar Under 1.10 and 1.11
• RI EAP Op. 2016-02: Former City Solicitor Representing Private Clients Before City Boards
• RI EAP Op. 91-63: Government Lawyer May Represent Clients Before Other Agencies if 1.7 Met

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%2092-39.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
Opinion #92-39

An attorney seeks Panel advice regarding the applicability of Rule 1.11 to certain facts. The inquiring attorney was employed as an investigator by Agency A, a public agency. While the inquiring attorney was so employed, Agency A, together with Agencies B, C, D, became defendants in a lawsuit. Agency A assigned the inquiring attorney to investigate the allegations in the lawsuit, and the attorney acquired personal knowledge regarding the case in the course of his/her employment at Agency A. The attorney represents that some of the issues in the lawsuit were resolved. In partial settlement of the suit, plaintiffs and Agency B drafted a consent decree, which was ultimately approved by the court. The claims against Agency A have not been resolved.

Having left his/her employment at Agency A, the inquiring attorney is now employed at Agency X, as an attorney. Agency X represents the private plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Agencies A, B, C, and D. In his/her role at Agency X, the inquiring attorney now wishes to represent the plaintiffs in an effort to enforce the consent decree between the plaintiffs and Agency B.

The attorney points out that he/she served as an investigator for Agency A and did not have an attorney-client relationship with Agency A during the course of the litigation that forms the basis of this inquiry. Nevertheless, the attorney now wishes to represent the parties who were adverse to his/her former employer, in a matter that is substantially related to the attorney's former employment. Rule 1.11(a) contains a broad prohibition that bars former government officials from representing clients in matters that are related to their government service:

(a) Except as law may otherwise expressly permit, a lawyer shall not represent a private client in connection with a matter in which the lawyer participated as a public officer or employee. Rule 1.11(a).

The comments to Rule 1.11 explain that this rule was designed to "[prevent] a lawyer from exploiting public office for the advantage of a private client." Id., comment, para. 1. Thus, the Panel is of the opinion that this rule plainly prohibits the inquiring attorney from representing a private client where, as in this case, that representation involves "a matter in which the lawyer participated as a public official."

The Panel also advises that if attorneys associated with the inquiring attorney undertake representation of the plaintiffs, they must comply with the screening and notice requirements of Rule 1.11(a)(1) and (2).