My former partner left our now-dissolved firm and the practice of law, leaving a client whose mail bounced. What duty do I owe that client?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney and Attorney B were partners in a firm that has since been dissolved. While in the firm, Attorney B had been retained to represent Client C in a personal injury matter, and the inquiring attorney had no supervisory authority over Attorney B with respect to Client C. The inquiring attorney recently came across Client C's file, which indicates that Attorney B's correspondence to Client C had been returned "addressee unknown." Upon leaving the firm and the active practice of law, Attorney B apparently made no arrangements with any partners or associates for the representation of Client C. The attorney asked what responsibility, if any, he or she has in protecting Client C's interests.

The opinion notes that guidelines for dealing with "missing" clients were specified in General Opinion No. 6, and that under Section 5.1(a) each partner in a law firm should make reasonable efforts to ensure the firm has measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers in the firm conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The opinion concludes, however, that the inquiring attorney's duty to assure the former partner's compliance with the Rules ended when the former partner left the firm. While the Panel does not opine as to past conduct, it states that it appears the firm took reasonable efforts to assure continuing representation in matters handled by Attorney B. In the absence of an undertaking by the inquiring attorney to represent Client C, the opinion concludes the attorney has no obligation to Client C other than to deliver the file to Client C's attorney, Attorney B. The opinion notes it is limited to the Rules of Professional Conduct and does not address substantive law.

In practice

Under this opinion, a partner's Rule 5.1(a) supervisory responsibility for a co-partner runs only while they are in the same firm; the opinion holds that duty ended when Attorney B left. Because the inquiring attorney had no supervisory authority over the matter and has not undertaken to represent Client C, the opinion frames the remaining obligation narrowly: deliver the file to Client C's attorney of record, Attorney B. The opinion declines to assess past conduct and limits itself to the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Common questions

Q: Do I have to track down a former partner's client after the firm dissolves?

A: The opinion concludes that, absent an undertaking to represent the client, the inquiring attorney's only obligation is to deliver the file to the client's attorney, the departed partner.

Q: Does my supervisory duty over a former partner continue after they leave?

A: No. The opinion states the duty to assure the former partner's compliance with the Rules ended when the former partner left the firm.

Q: Who is Client C's lawyer now?

A: The opinion treats Attorney B as Client C's attorney and directs delivery of the file to Attorney B, in the absence of the inquiring attorney undertaking the representation.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Rhode Island Rule of Professional Conduct 5.1(a) (responsibilities of partners and supervisory lawyers), the analog of Model Rule 5.1, requiring partners to make reasonable efforts to ensure the firm has measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers conform to the Rules. It applies the rule together with the Panel's General Opinion No. 6 on "missing" clients, concluding the supervisory duty ends when the supervised lawyer leaves the firm.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 5.1 / RI RPC 5.1(a) (responsibilities of partners; reasonable efforts to assure firm-wide compliance)

Other authorities cited:

• RI EAP General Opinion No. 6 (guidelines for dealing with "missing" clients)

See also

• RI EAP Opinion 93-47: after firm dissolution a lawyer may take an adverse lease matter under 1.10(c)

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%2093-78.pdf

Original opinion text

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

(FINAL)
ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
OPINION #93-78, REQUEST #420
Issued October 5, 1993

The inquiring attorney and Attorney B were partners in a firm which has been dissolved. While in the firm, Attorney B had been retained to represent Client C in a personal injury matter. The inquiring attorney had no supervisory authority over Attorney B with respect to Client C. The inquiring attorney "recently came across" Client C's file, which indicates that Attorney B's correspondence to Client C had been returned addressee unknown. Upon leaving the firm and the active practice of law, Attorney B apparently had made no arrangements with any of Attorney B's partners or associates for representation of Client C.

The inquiring attorney asks what, if any, responsibility he/she has in respect to protecting Client C's interests.

Guidelines for dealing with "missing" clients were specified by the Panel in General Opinion No. 6. Under Section 5.1(a), "each partner in a law firm [should] make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers in the firm conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct."

In this case, however, the inquiring attorney's duty to assure his/her former partner's compliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct ended when the former partner left the firm. While the Panel does not opine as to past conduct, it appears from the inquiry that this firm took reasonable efforts to assure continuing representation in matters being handled by Attorney B. In the absence of an undertaking by the inquiring attorney to represent Client C, the Panel is of the opinion that the inquiring attorney has no obligation to Client C other than to deliver the subject file to Client C's attorney, Attorney B.

This opinion is limited to the applicability of the Rules of Professional Conduct and does not address issues of substantive law that may have bearing on the issue raised by this inquiry.