I am an adjunct professor at a university. Can I represent a full-time faculty member in a tenure lawsuit against the same university?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney is an adjunct faculty member at an academic institution who typically teaches one evening course per semester and serves as a faculty advisor to one or two independent-study students. The attorney asked whether he or she may represent a full-time faculty member in a tenure suit against the institution.

The opinion applies Rule 1.7(b), which bars representation that may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client or 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. The opinion notes that, on the facts presented, there is no client-lawyer relationship between the attorney and the academic institution.

The opinion concludes that to permit the representation the attorney must inform the client of the attorney's potential responsibilities to the third party (the academic institution) and of the attorney's own interests; if the attorney reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected and the client consents after consultation, representation is permissible under Rule 1.7.

In practice

Under this opinion, the adjunct relationship creates a potential material-limitation concern under Rule 1.7(b) -- the attorney's own interests and responsibilities toward the institution -- rather than an outright bar, because the institution is not the attorney's client. The opinion permits the representation on the rule's stated conditions: disclosure of the attorney's potential responsibilities to the institution and own interests, the attorney's reasonable belief the representation will not be adversely affected, and the client's consent after consultation.

Common questions

Q: Is the university the adjunct's client for conflict purposes?

A: No. The opinion states that on the facts presented there is no client-lawyer relationship between the attorney and the academic institution.

Q: Can the adjunct-attorney take the tenure case against the school?

A: Yes, conditionally. The opinion concludes representation is permissible under Rule 1.7 if the disclosure, reasonable-belief, and consent conditions are met.

Q: What must the attorney disclose to the client?

A: The opinion says the attorney must inform the client of the attorney's potential responsibilities to the third party (the institution) and of the attorney's own interests before proceeding.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Rhode Island Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7(b) (conflict of interest: general rule), the analog of Model Rule 1.7. Rule 1.7(b) prohibits representation materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client or 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.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.7 / RI RPC 1.7(b) (conflict of interest; material limitation by responsibilities to a third person or the lawyer's own interests)

See also

• RI EAP Opinion 93-51: may represent a former client's employer before the same board with consent under 1.7

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%2093-60.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

(FINAL)
ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
OPINION #93-60, REQUEST #399
Issued September 14, 1993

The inquiring attorney is an adjunct faculty member at an academic institution and typically teaches one (1) evening course per semester. He/she also serves as a faculty advisor, having one (1) or two (2) students on independent study. The attorney inquires as to whether he/she may represent a full-time faculty member in a tenure suit against the academic institution.

Rule 1.7 entitled "Conflict of Interest: General Rule" applies. The Rule states in pertinent part as follows:

(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. When representation of multiple clients in a single matter is undertaken, the consultation shall include explanation of the implications of the common representation and the advantages and risks involved.

Under the facts as presented, there is no client-lawyer relationship between the inquiring attorney and the academic institution. To permit representation, under these facts, the inquiring attorney must inform the client of the attorney's potential responsibilities to the third party, the academic institution, and of the attorney's own interests. If the attorney reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected, and if the client consents after consultation, the Panel concludes representation is permissible under Rule 1.7.