I won a judgment for a client, and now the defendant wants to pay, but I can't find my client. What are my obligations for collecting and disbursing the funds?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney obtained a judgment for a client. A year later, the defendant offered to satisfy the judgment. The attorney could not locate the client at the client's address or by telephone, and asked about the attorney's obligations regarding satisfaction or settlement of the judgment, its collection, and disbursement of the client's funds.

The panel noted that it had received numerous inquiries from attorneys about the appropriate ethical conduct when unable to locate a client. Citing its General Information Opinion #6 (issued June 30, 1993), the panel opined that a lawyer must exercise diligent efforts to locate the missing client and to protect the client's interests within the purview of the retention agreement. The panel directed the attorney to General Information Opinion #6 for a complete discussion of an attorney's obligations when unable to locate a client.

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. The Rhode Island Supreme Court later revised the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2007 as part of the nationwide Ethics 2000 process. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: What must a lawyer do when a client can't be found to receive settlement or judgment funds?

A: Under this opinion, the lawyer must exercise diligent efforts to locate the missing client and to protect the client's interests within the scope of the retention agreement; the panel directs attorneys to its General Information Opinion #6 for the full analysis.

Q: Did the panel address how long to hold or where to place the funds?

A: This opinion did not spell out disbursement mechanics; it resolved the inquiry by referring the attorney to General Information Opinion #6 for a complete discussion of the obligations when a client cannot be located.

Background and rules framework

The opinion does not cite a specific numbered Rule of Professional Conduct. Instead, it applies the panel's General Information Opinion #6 (issued June 30, 1993), which addresses an attorney's ethical obligations when unable to locate a client, and states the governing duty as making diligent efforts to locate the client and to protect the client's interests within the purview of the retention agreement.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• None cited by number.

Statutes:

• None cited.

Cases:

• None cited.

Other opinions cited:

• RI EAP General Information Opinion #6 (issued June 30, 1993), obligations of an attorney unable to locate a client

See also

• RI EAP Op. 95-24: Obligations to a Client Who Cannot Be Located
• RI EAP Op. 95-31: Holding a Disputed Divorce Settlement Share for an Unrepresented Ex-Spouse

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%2095-39.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 # 95-39, - REQUEST #617
SEPTEMBER 14, 1995

The inquiring attorney obtained a judgment for a client. A year later, the defendant offered to satisfy the judgment. The inquiring attorney cannot locate the client at his/her address or by telephone and asks about his/her obligations regarding the satisfaction/settlement of the judgment, its collection and the disbursement of the client's funds.

The Panel has received numerous inquiries from attorneys concerning the appropriate ethical conduct for an attorney when unable to locate a client. In accordance with the Panel's General Information Opinion #6 (Issued June 30, 1993), the Panel opined that a lawyer must exercise diligent efforts to locate the missing client and to protect the client's interests within the purview of the retention agreement. See, Ethics Advisory Panel General Information Opinion # 6 for a complete discussion of an attorney's obligation when unable to locate a client.