I represent a client in a divorce and also represent the opposing lawyer in a separate, unrelated matter. My client consented. Does that violate the conflict rules?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney represents a client in a domestic matter and also represents the adverse counsel (the opposing lawyer in the domestic action) in a matter separate from the domestic action. The attorney states that the client consented to this arrangement, and asked whether any violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct exists.

The panel said Rule 1.7 ("Conflicts of Interest") governs, and quoted Rule 1.7(b): a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client or to a third person, or by the lawyer's own interests, unless the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected and the client consents after consultation.

Applying the rule, the panel concluded that the inquiring attorney may represent the adverse counsel if the attorney reasonably believes that the representation of the client in the domestic matter will not be adversely affected and the attorney receives informed consent from both clients.

In practice

Under this opinion, a lawyer who simultaneously represents a client in a domestic case and the opposing lawyer in a separate, unrelated matter is in a Rule 1.7(b) material-limitation situation that can be consented to. The opinion permits the dual representation only where the lawyer reasonably believes the domestic client's representation will not be adversely affected and both clients give informed consent.

Common questions

Q: Can I represent both my client and the opposing lawyer in a separate matter?

A: Per the opinion, yes, if the attorney reasonably believes the domestic client's representation will not be adversely affected and both clients give informed consent under Rule 1.7(b).

Q: Is my client's consent alone enough?

A: Per the opinion, the attorney must receive informed consent from both clients, and must reasonably believe the domestic client's representation will not be adversely affected.

Q: What rule applies to this arrangement?

A: Per the opinion, Rule 1.7(b) (conflict of interest: material limitation) governs.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rhode Island Rule 1.7(b) (conflict of interest: material limitation), corresponding to Model Rule 1.7(b). The panel treated the lawyer's representation of the opposing lawyer as a potential material limitation on the domestic representation, curable by the lawyer's reasonable belief of no adverse effect plus both clients' informed consent.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.7(b) (conflict of interest: material limitation)
• RI RPC 1.7(b)

Statutes:

• None cited.

Cases:

• None cited.

Other opinions cited:

• None cited.

See also

• RI EAP Op. 92-86: When Recusals Triggered by a Lawyer's Ties Imperil the Client's Vote
• RI EAP Op. 92-32: May Represent School Department While Opposing the Town's Zoning Board
• RI EAP Op. 92-74: A Receiver Representing an Employee's Spouse in an Unrelated Matter

Currency note

This opinion was issued in early 1993 (Opinion 93-03, issued March 15, 1993), after the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 15, 1988, and it applies Rule 1.7 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 1.7 (conflict of interest: current clients), including the informed-consent framework. 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%2093-03.pdf

Original opinion text

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

ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
Opinion 93-3, Request #333
Issued March 15, 1993

An attorney seeks Panel advice regarding a possible conflict of interest. The attorney represents a client in a domestic matter and also represents the adverse counsel in a matter separate from the domestic action. The attorney states that the client consented to this arrangement. The attorney asks whether any violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct exist.

Rule 1.7 entitled "Conflicts of Interest" governs this inquiry. The Rule states that:

(b) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client or to a third person, or by the lawyer's own interests, unless:

(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected; and

(2) the client consents after consultation.

As stated in the Rule, the inquiring attorney may represent adverse counsel if the inquiring attorney reasonably believes that the representation of the client in the domestic matter will not be adversely affected and the attorney receives informed consent by both clients.