I'm a part-time lawyer and also a town's full-time police officer and prosecutor. Can I defend criminal defendants and practice in the Administrative Adjudication Court?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney maintained a part-time law practice and was also a full-time police officer for Town A, serving as the prosecution officer for Town A's police department responsible for prosecuting defendants in District Court in that county. The attorney asked whether he or she could represent a criminal defendant in a matter unrelated to the Town A employment, and whether he or she could practice in the Administrative Adjudication Court.

The panel applied Rule 1.7(b), which bars representing a client where the representation 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 panel opined that the inquiring attorney may represent criminal defendants as long as neither the lawyer's responsibilities to other clients nor the lawyer's own interests materially limit the representation. It drew a firm line, however: the attorney may not represent a criminal defendant in Town A, or anyone who has been arrested in or by Town A. The panel declined to opine on the attorney's obligations to Town A as a police officer, because that is not governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct, and noted its guidance does not extend to the State Ethics Code or other laws.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995, 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 restructured the conflict-of-interest rule around a significant risk of material limitation and informed consent. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Could the police-officer prosecutor take criminal defense work at all?

A: The opinion allowed it in general, so long as neither the lawyer's responsibilities to other clients nor the lawyer's own interests materially limited the representation under Rule 1.7(b).

Q: Where was the line the lawyer could not cross?

A: The opinion held that the attorney may not represent a criminal defendant in Town A, or anyone who had been arrested in or by Town A.

Q: Did the panel address the lawyer's duties as a police officer?

A: No. The opinion declined to opine on the attorney's obligations to Town A as a police officer because that is not a matter governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Rhode Island Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7(b) (Model Rule 1.7) as it stood at the time, barring representation that may be materially limited by the lawyer's responsibilities to another client or third person, or by the lawyer's own interests, absent the lawyer's reasonable belief and the client's consent after consultation. The panel treated the attorney's role as Town A's prosecutor and police officer as the source of a material limitation for defendants connected to Town A, while leaving unrelated defense work permissible under the general standard.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 1.7 / RI RPC 1.7(b) (conflict of interest; representation materially limited by responsibilities to a third person or the lawyer's own interests)

See also

• RI EAP Op. 2025-13: A police prosecutor may not defend a client against the same department
• RI EAP Op. 90-17: A former prosecutor may not sue a defendant in a related civil case
• RI EAP Op. 95-07: Probate judge representing clients before the same city's zoning board

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%2095-16.pdf

Original opinion text

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

FINAL

ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
OPINION # 95-16, REQUEST # 575
Issued March 23, 1995

The inquiring attorney maintains a part-time law practice and is also employed as a full-time police officer for Town A. He/she is also the prosecution officer for Town A's police department responsible for the prosecution of defendants in District Court in that county. The inquiring attorney asks whether he/she is able to represent a criminal defendant in a matter unrelated to his/her employment with Town A and whether he/she can practice in the Administrative Adjudication Court.

The propriety of the inquiring attorney representing either criminal defendants or clients before the Adjudication Court is addressed by Rule 1.7 entitled "Conflict of Interest: General Rule." That Rule provides 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 ...

The Panel opines that the inquiring attorney may represent criminal defendants as long as neither the lawyer's responsibilities to other clients nor the lawyer's own interests materially limit the inquiring attorney's representation. The inquiring attorney may not represent a criminal defendant in Town A or anyone who has been arrested in or by Town A.

The Panel does not opine on the issue of the inquiring attorney's obligations to Town A as a police officer because this is not a matter governed by the Rules of Professional Conduct.

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 a bearing on the issues raised by this inquiry.