My old clients' minor child got a settlement held in trust by the parents, and I now hear the trust funds are missing. Do I have any duty to the child or to seek an accounting under Rule 1.9?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney's law office had represented a minor child and his or her parents regarding a dog-bite incident. At trial, the court appointed a guardian ad litem to represent the child's interests, a settlement was awarded in favor of the minor, and the court appointed the parents as trustees of the funds, ordering them to hold the money under the conditions in the trust agreement. A year later, the attorney learned from police that the minor's father had been arrested for possession with intent to deliver narcotics and that the minor's trust account was missing a large sum of money. The attorney asked whether he or she had any obligation to the minor and whether he or she should seek an accounting of the trust account on the minor's behalf.

The Panel set out Rule 1.9 ("Conflict of Interest: Former Client"), under which a lawyer who has formerly represented a client may not represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter with materially adverse interests absent the former client's consent, and may not use information relating to the representation to the former client's disadvantage except as Rule 1.6 or Rule 3.3 permits or when the information has become generally known.

Applying Rule 1.9, the Panel opined that the inquiring attorney may not use any information gained from the previous representation of the parents to their disadvantage in an unrelated matter. It further opined that, assuming the attorney does not represent the guardian and no longer represents the parents, the attorney does not have a legal obligation to protect the interest of the minor child.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1994 (Opinion 94-53, issued July 27, 1994), after the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 15, 1988, and it applies Rule 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 amended Rule 1.9. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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.

Common questions

Q: Do I owe an ongoing duty to a former client's child after the representation ends?

A: The Panel opined that, assuming the attorney no longer represents the parents and does not represent the guardian, the attorney has no legal obligation to protect the minor child's interest.

Q: Can I use what I learned representing the parents against them later?

A: No. The Panel opined the attorney may not use information gained from the previous representation of the parents to their disadvantage in an unrelated matter, consistent with Rule 1.9(b).

Q: Am I required to seek an accounting of the minor's trust account?

A: The Panel found no such legal obligation, given that the attorney no longer represents the parents and does not represent the guardian who was appointed for the child.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Rhode Island Rule of Professional Conduct 1.9 (conflict of interest: former client), the analog of Model Rule 1.9. Rule 1.9(a) restricts adverse representation in substantially related matters absent consent; Rule 1.9(b) restricts using information from a prior representation to the former client's disadvantage. The Panel applied the information-use restriction and found no continuing duty to the minor absent a current representation.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.9 / RI RPC 1.9(a), (b) (conflict of interest: former client; limits on adverse representation and on using prior-representation information)

See also

• RI EAP Opinion 94-47: adverse to a former client in a substantially related matter
• RI EAP Opinion 94-28: firm's former estate client bars representing the insurer under Rules 1.9/1.10

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%2094-53.pdf

Original opinion text

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

ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
OPINION #94-53 REQUEST #523
Issued July 27, 1994

The inquiring attorney's law office represented a minor child and his/her parents regarding a dog bite incident. At trial, the Court appointed a guardian ad litem to represent the child's interests and a settlement was awarded in favor of the minor. The Court also appointed the parents of the minor as trustees of the monies and were ordered to hold the funds according to the stated conditions in the trust agreement.

A year later the attorney learned from the police that the minor's father was arrested for possession with intent to deliver narcotics and that the minor's trust account was missing a large sum of money. The attorney asks if he/she has any obligation to the minor and whether he/she should seek an accounting of the trust account on behalf of the minor.

Rule 1.9 entitled "Conflict of Interest: Former Client" states: A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter:

(a) represent another person in the same or a substantially related matter in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the interests of the former client unless the former client consents after consultation, or

(b) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as Rule 1.6 or Rule 3.3 would permit or require with respect to a client or when the information has become generally known.

The inquiring attorney may not use any information gained from previous representation of the parents to their disadvantage in an unrelated matter. Assuming that the attorney does not represent the guardian and no longer represents the parents then the attorney does not have a legal obligation to protect the interest of the minor child.