I'm a state child-support agency lawyer. I represent the state for one parent and, for a fee, a second parent, both owed support by the same father whose injury settlement can't cover both. Can I keep representing the second parent?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney is a staff attorney at a state agency that represents the state in child-support cases where the custodial parent receives welfare, and that also represents non-welfare custodial parents who, for a $20 fee to the state, may pursue their own support claims. Parent Y receives welfare for a child she had with absent parent X, and the state brought a contempt motion against X for support owed to the state. Parent Z, who is not a welfare recipient, also has a child with X and retained the agency to pursue support against X. Both cases were continued to review X's personal-injury case, and the settlement might not satisfy both Y's and Z's arrearages. Under Rhode Island law, payments toward child-support arrearages in this circumstance must be apportioned. The attorney did not want to compromise the interests of either the state or parent Z in that apportionment.

The panel framed the issue as whether the prohibition of Rule 1.7(a) applied. Because the attorney represented the state with regard to parent Y and also represented parent Z against the same individual, and because the potential personal-injury settlement had to be apportioned between the state and parent Z, the panel found the matters became directly adverse to each client.

The panel concluded that the attorney may continue to represent parent Z, but only if the requirements of Rule 1.7(a)(1) and (2) are met: the attorney must reasonably believe the representation will not adversely affect the relationship between both clients, and each client must consent after consultation.

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 renumbered and amended several provisions. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: What made the two child-support representations directly adverse?

A: Under this opinion, the fact that a single personal-injury settlement had to be apportioned between the state and parent Z, and might not satisfy both arrearages, made the matters directly adverse to each client.

Q: Can the agency lawyer still represent both interests?

A: The panel concluded the attorney may continue representing parent Z only if the attorney reasonably believes the representation will not adversely affect the relationship with the other client and each client consents after consultation, per Rule 1.7(a).

Q: Does representing the state count as representing a client for conflict purposes?

A: Yes. The panel treated the state as the attorney's client for parent Y's matter and analyzed the adversity between the state and parent Z under Rule 1.7(a).

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rule 1.7 (Conflict of Interest: General Rule), corresponding to Model Rule 1.7. The panel quoted Rule 1.7(a), under which a lawyer may not represent a client whose representation is directly adverse to another client unless the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not adversely affect the other relationship and each client consents after consultation. The analysis turned on a Rhode Island child-support apportionment statute, which forced the state's and parent Z's claims to compete for the same limited settlement fund and thereby made the representations directly adverse.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.7 (conflict of interest: current clients)
• RI RPC 1.7

Statutes:

• Rhode Island General Law governing apportionment of child-support arrearage payments (cited generally, not by section).

Cases:

• None cited.

Other opinions cited:

• None cited.

See also

• RI EAP Op. 95-54: Divorce Clients Who Are Dating
• RI EAP Op. 95-22: Agency-Wide Conflict From Advice
• RI EAP Op. 95-11: Deposing a Current Client

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%2095-56.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 # 95-56, - REQUEST # 633
ISSUED - DECEMBER 14, 1995

FACTS:

The inquiring attorney is a staff attorney at a state agency. This agency represents the state in cases in which the custodial parent is receiving welfare in an effort to secure child support for the state's benefit. The agency also represents any custodial parent not receiving welfare who, with a $20.00 fee to the state, can pursue a child support claim. Parent Y receives welfare for a child she had with absent parent X. The state brought a contempt motion against parent X for child support owed to the state. Parent Z, who is not a recipient of welfare, also has a child with parent X and retained this state agency to pursue child support against parent X. The court has continued both cases to review the status of parent X's personal injury case. The problem is that the personal injury settlement may not satisfy both parent Y and parent Z's arrearages owed to the state. Pursuant to a Rhode Island General Law, payments toward child support arrearages in this circumstance must be apportioned. The inquiring attorney's concern is that he/she does not want to compromise the interests of the state or parent Z regarding the apportionment of funds.

ISSUE PRESENTED:

Can the inquiring attorney continue to represent parent Z under these circumstances?

OPINION:

Yes, the inquiring attorney may continue to represent Parent Z if Rule 1.7(a)(1) and (2) is followed.

REASONING:

The issue presented is whether the prohibition of Rule 1.7(a) applies. It states, in part:

(a) A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client will be directly adverse to another client, unless:

(1) the lawyer reasonably believes the representation will not adversely affect the relationship with the other client; and

(2) each client consents after consultation.

In this situation, the inquiring attorney represents the state with regard to parent Y, and parent Z against the same individual. Because there is a potential personal injury settlement to be apportioned between the state and parent Z, the matters become directly adverse to each client. Rule 1.7 states that the matters can be directly adverse to both clients and the attorney may continue the representation as long as the lawyer reasonably believes that the representation will not adversely affect the relationship between both clients and each client consents after consultation. In this situation, the inquiring attorney must fulfill Rule 1.7(a), (1) and (2)'s criteria before continuing the representation with parent Z.