I'm a court-appointed receiver of a corporation and work closely with one of its employees. Can I take on the employee's spouse as a client in an unrelated criminal case?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney is a court-appointed receiver of a small, closely held corporation. As receiver, the attorney works closely with a particular employee of the corporation. That employee's spouse now seeks to engage the inquiring attorney for representation in an unrelated criminal matter, and the attorney asked whether a conflict of interest arises.

The panel concluded that the circumstances described do not create a conflict of interest, and that the attorney would not be violating the rules addressing conflicts of interest, specifically Rules 1.7, 1.8, and 1.9. The panel agreed that the representation of the corporation (through the receivership) and the representation of the employee's spouse are totally unrelated and would not be directly adverse to one another.

In practice

Under this opinion, a receiver's close working relationship with a corporation's employee does not, by itself, disqualify the receiver from representing that employee's spouse in a separate, unrelated criminal matter. The opinion holds there is no conflict under Rules 1.7, 1.8, or 1.9 where the two matters are unrelated and not directly adverse.

Common questions

Q: Does serving as a receiver conflict me out of representing an employee's family member?

A: Per the opinion, not on these facts; the panel found no conflict under Rules 1.7, 1.8, or 1.9 because the receivership and the spouse's criminal matter are totally unrelated and not directly adverse.

Q: What made the panel find no conflict?

A: Per the opinion, the representation of the corporation and the representation of the employee's spouse are totally unrelated and would not be directly adverse to one another.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rhode Island Rules 1.7 (conflict of interest: current clients), 1.8 (specific conflicts), and 1.9 (duties to former clients), corresponding to the same-numbered Model Rules. The panel measured the receiver's proposed representation against those conflict rules and found the two matters unrelated and not directly adverse, so none applied to bar the representation.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.7 (conflict of interest: current clients)
• MR 1.8 (conflict of interest: specific rules)
• MR 1.9 (duties to former clients)
• RI RPC 1.7, 1.8, 1.9

Statutes:

• None cited.

Cases:

• None cited.

Other opinions cited:

• None cited.

See also

• RI EAP Op. 92-33: Office-Sharing With a Council Member Is Not a Firm
• RI EAP Op. 92-36: Volunteer City Solicitor May Sue the State for a Resident
• RI EAP Op. 92-59: Representing a Wife in Divorce After the Husband's Corporations

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1992 (Opinion 92-74, issued September 16, 1992), after the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 15, 1988, and it applies Rules 1.7, 1.8, and 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 renumbered and amended the conflict-of-interest 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.

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%2092-74.pdf

Original opinion text

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

ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
Opinion 92-74, Request #302
Issued September 16, 1992

An attorney seeks Panel advice as to whether a conflict of interest arises under the following circumstances. The inquiring attorney is a court appointed receiver of a small closely held corporation. As receiver, the attorney works closely with a particular employee of the corporation. That employee's spouse now seeks to engage the inquiring attorney for representation in an unrelated criminal matter.

The Panel believes that the circumstances described herein do not create a conflict of interest and therefore the attorney would not be violating the Rules which address Conflict of Interest, specifically Rules 1.7, 1.8 and 1.9. The Panel agrees that the representation of the corporation and the employee's spouse are totally unrelated and would not be directly adverse to one another.