I once prepared wills for the Mayor and his family, and the Mayor appoints the planning board. Can I now represent a client before the town's planning and zoning boards on permits and variances under Rule 1.9?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney asked whether he or she could represent a long-standing client before the municipal zoning board and planning board of Town A regarding special use permits and variances. The attorney had previously prepared wills and documents for the Mayor of Town A and his family. The Mayor appoints the planning board members, and the town council appoints the zoning board members.

The Panel answered yes. It framed the question under Rule 1.9 ("Conflict of Interest: Former Client") and set out the rule's text. The Panel concluded that the attorney may represent the current client before the municipal zoning and planning boards because the matters are not the same or substantially related to the matters handled for the former client, the Mayor. It added that the attorney may not use information relating to the representation of the former client to that client's disadvantage, and limited its guidance to the Rules of Professional Conduct rather than the State Ethics Code.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996 (Opinion 96-20, issued August 8, 1996), after the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 15, 1988, and it applies Rule 1.9 as it 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 amended these rules. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Does drafting a public official's will bar me from appearing before boards he influences?

A: The Panel said not on these facts. It analyzed the question under Rule 1.9 and found the wills unrelated to the zoning and planning matters, so the former-client bar did not apply.

Q: Why didn't the Mayor's appointment power over the planning board create a conflict?

A: The Panel confined its analysis to Rule 1.9's former-client test and the relatedness of the matters, and referred appointment and State Ethics Code questions to the State Ethics Commission.

Q: What limit still applies?

A: The attorney may not use information relating to the former representation of the Mayor to the Mayor's disadvantage.

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. The Panel applied the substantial-relationship test, finding estate planning for the Mayor factually distinct from a later client's zoning and permit matters, and expressly left State Ethics Code questions to the State Ethics Commission.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.9 / RI RPC 1.9 (conflict of interest: former client; substantial-relationship test)

See also

• RI EAP Opinion 96-19: representing an employee against a former corporate client under Rule 1.9
• RI EAP Opinion 2016-02: a former city solicitor representing private clients before city boards

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%2096-20.pdf

Original opinion text

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

ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
OPINION # 96-20, - REQUEST # 666
Issued - August 8, 1996

FACTS:

The inquiring attorney asks whether he/she may represent a long-standing client before the municipal zoning board and planning board of Town A regarding special use permits and variances. The inquiring attorney previously prepared wills and documents for the Mayor of Town A and his family. The Mayor appoints the planning board members; the town council appoints the members of the zoning board.

ISSUES PRESENTED:

Can the inquiring attorney represent the client before Town A's planning and zoning boards under these circumstances?

OPINION:

Yes, as set forth below.

REASONING:

The issue presented is whether the inquiring attorney is prohibited from representing the client under Rule 1.9 "Conflict of Interest: Former Client." That Rule 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 represent the current client before the municipal zoning and planning boards because the matters are not the same or substantially related to matters handled for the former client, the Mayor. Additionally, the inquiring attorney may not use information relating to the representation of the former client to that client's disadvantage.

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.