I am a state legislator and my proposed law partner is counsel paid by the legislature. Can we form a law partnership?

Plain-English summary

Attorney A is a member of the Rhode Island General Assembly. Attorney B serves as legal counsel to a legislative leader and is paid through the Joint Committee on Legislative Affairs (JCLA). The two wished to form a partnership or association for the practice of law, intending to segregate their funds so that Attorney A would not receive any of Attorney B's JCLA compensation. They asked whether such a partnership or association would be permissible under the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The opinion concludes that the proposed formation of a law partnership or association by Attorneys A and B does not in itself violate the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Panel states it cannot speculate as to potential situations that may arise in the future, and reminds the inquiring attorneys of their obligation to comply with Rule 1.11 ("Successive Government and Private Employment").

The opinion adds that its guidance is restricted to interpretations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and does not extend to issues under the State Ethics Code or any other rules, regulations, or laws bearing on the inquiry.

In practice

Under this opinion, forming the partnership is not itself a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct on the facts presented, including the plan to segregate funds so the legislator does not share the legislative-counsel compensation. The opinion does not clear future conduct: it expressly declines to speculate about situations that may arise and points the attorneys to Rule 1.11's obligations regarding successive government and private employment, while noting other bodies of law (such as the State Ethics Code) are outside its scope.

Common questions

Q: Does forming this partnership by itself violate the ethics rules?

A: No. The opinion concludes the proposed formation of the partnership or association does not in itself violate the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Q: Which rule does the Panel flag for ongoing compliance?

A: Rule 1.11 (successive government and private employment); the opinion reminds the attorneys of their obligation to comply with it.

Q: Did the Panel resolve every future issue the arrangement could raise?

A: No. The opinion states it cannot speculate as to potential situations that may arise, and notes issues under the State Ethics Code and other laws are outside its scope.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Rhode Island Rule of Professional Conduct 1.11 (successive government and private employment), the analog of Model Rule 1.11, which governs conflicts and restrictions when a lawyer moves between government service and private practice. The opinion applies it as a forward-looking compliance reminder rather than resolving a specific present conflict, and limits its guidance to the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.11 / RI RPC 1.11 (successive government and private employment)

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%2093-62.pdf

Original opinion text

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

(FINAL)
ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
OPINION #93-62, REQUEST #401
Issued September 14, 1993

Attorney A is a member of the Rhode Island General Assembly. Attorney B serves as legal counsel to a legislative leader and is paid through the Joint Committee on Legislative Affairs (JCLA). Attorneys A and B desire to form a partnership or association for the practice of law. They intend to segregate their funds so that Attorney A will not receive any of Attorney B's compensation from the JCLA. Attorney A and B ask whether such a partnership or association would be permissible under the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The Panel believes that the proposed formation of a law partnership or association by Attorneys A and B does not in itself violate the Rules of Professional Conduct. However, the Panel cannot speculate as to potential situations which may arise in the future, and further reminds the inquiring attorneys of their obligation to comply with the provisions of Rule 1.11 entitled "Successive Government and Private Employment."

The Panel's guidance is restricted to interpretations of the Rules of Professional Conduct and does not extend to issues under the State Ethics Code or any other rules, regulations or laws that may have bearing on the issues raised by this inquiry.