My spouse works in a supervisory role for a company that I am about to sue on behalf of one of its employees. Is that a conflict of interest under Rules 1.7, 1.8, or 1.9?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney represented an employee in a lawsuit against an employer. The attorney's spouse was employed at the employer's place of business in a supervisory capacity. The attorney asked whether representing the employee against the employer would be a conflict of interest in light of the spouse's employment.

The Panel answered no. It identified Rules 1.7, 1.8, and 1.9 as the conflict-of-interest rules and explained that those rules are primarily concerned with conflicts of interest that occur between two clients. Quoting Rule 1.7(a) ("A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client will be directly adverse to another client"), the Panel reasoned that because the attorney's representation of the one client, the employee, would not be adverse to another client, no conflict of interest existed.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996 (Opinion 96-02, issued February 8, 1996), after the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 15, 1988, and it applies Rules 1.7, 1.8, and 1.9 as they stood at the time. The Rhode Island Supreme Court later revised the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2007 as part of the nationwide Ethics 2000 process, which reorganized the personal-interest conflict 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Is it a conflict to sue a company where my spouse works?

A: On these facts the Panel said no. It found no conflict under Rules 1.7, 1.8, or 1.9 because the attorney had only one client, the employee, and that representation was not adverse to another client.

Q: Why did the spouse's supervisory role not create a conflict?

A: The Panel framed the conflict rules as concerned with conflicts between two clients. The employer was not the attorney's client, so the spouse's employment there did not make the representation adverse to another client.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Rhode Island Rules of Professional Conduct 1.7, 1.8, and 1.9, the analogs of Model Rules 1.7, 1.8, and 1.9. The Panel resolved the inquiry on Rule 1.7(a)'s directly-adverse-to-another-client standard, finding it not triggered where the adverse party is not a client of the lawyer.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.7 / RI RPC 1.7 (conflict of interest: general rule; directly adverse to another client)
• MR 1.8 / RI RPC 1.8 (conflict of interest: prohibited transactions)
• MR 1.9 / RI RPC 1.9 (conflict of interest: former client)

See also

• RI EAP Opinion 91-69: no conflict where firm counsel to an agency and a corporation with only a speculative benefit under Rule 1.7
• RI EAP Opinion 90-01: referring clients to the attorney's spouse, a real estate agent

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%2096-02.pdf

Original opinion text

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

Ethics Advisory Panel
Opinion # 96-02, - Request # 644
February 8, 1996

Facts:

The inquiring attorney represents an employee against an employer in a lawsuit. The inquiring attorney's spouse is employed at the employer's place of business in a supervisory capacity.

Issue Presented:

Whether there would be a conflict of interest for the inquiring attorney to represent the employee against the employer in light of his/her spouse's employment.

Opinion:

No.

Reasoning:

The Rules addressing conflict of interest are Rules 1.7, 1.8, and 1.9. Primarily, the Rules are concerned with conflict of interests that occurs between two clients. For example, Rule 1.7(a) states that "A lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation of that client will be directly adverse to another client..." Because the inquiring attorney's representation of one client, the employee, will not be adverse to another client, no conflict of interest exists.