I am going through my own divorce, and I just learned that opposing counsel in my client's divorce is the same lawyer representing my spouse against me. Does my personal interest materially limit my representation under Rule 1.7(b)?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney was a party in his or her own divorce action. The attorney was recently retained to prosecute a client's divorce, and upon receiving the entry of appearance of opposing counsel, learned that the opposing counsel in the client's divorce was the same attorney representing the inquiring attorney's spouse in the attorney's own divorce. The question was whether the inquiring attorney's interest in the outcome of his or her own divorce would materially limit the representation of the client.

The Panel applied Rule 1.7(b), which bars representing a client if the representation may be materially limited 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 noted that the attorney's interest was presumably the outcome of his or her own divorce, that the two matters were unrelated apart from the shared opposing counsel, and that there was no relationship between opposing counsel and the inquiring attorney; indeed, opposing counsel represented interests adverse to the inquiring attorney. Whether issues in one action became impermissibly intertwined with the other would depend on the professionalism of opposing counsel and the inquiring attorney.

The Panel concluded that as long as the inquiring attorney reasonably believes his or her representation of the client will not be adversely affected, communicates that belief to the client after full disclosure, and obtains the client's consent, the attorney may continue to represent the client in the divorce action.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996 (Opinion 96-23, issued September 12, 1996), after the Rhode Island Supreme Court adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 15, 1988, and it applies Rule 1.7(b) 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 reorganized Rule 1.7's conflict standard. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 if my own divorce lawyer's opponent also opposes my client?

A: The Panel treated it as a potential material-limitation conflict under Rule 1.7(b), not an automatic disqualification, turning on whether the attorney's personal interest would adversely affect the client's representation.

Q: Can I keep representing the client?

A: Yes, if the attorney reasonably believes the representation will not be adversely affected and obtains the client's consent after full disclosure of the facts.

Q: What did the Panel see as the risk?

A: That issues from one divorce could become impermissibly intertwined with the other; it said the outcome depends on the professionalism of both opposing counsel and the inquiring attorney.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Rhode Island Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7(b) (conflict of interest; material limitation by the lawyer's own interests), the analog of Model Rule 1.7(b). The Panel treated the shared opposing counsel as creating a personal-interest conflict curable by the lawyer's reasonable belief plus the client's informed consent.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.7 / RI RPC 1.7(b) (conflict of interest; material limitation by the lawyer's own interests; consent after consultation)

See also

• RI EAP Opinion 96-02: no conflict in suing an employer where the lawyer's spouse is a supervisor
• RI EAP Opinion 96-11: representing a union where the lawyer's father sits on the city's trial board under Rule 1.8(i)

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%2096-23.pdf

Original opinion text

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

ETHICS ADVISORY PANEL
OPINION # 96-23, - REQUEST # 679
Issued - September 12, 1996

FACTS:

The inquiring attorney is a party in a divorce action. The attorney was recently retained by a client to prosecute the client's divorce. Upon receiving a copy of the entry of appearance of opposing counsel, the inquiring attorney learned that the opposing counsel in the client's divorce is the same attorney who represents the inquiring attorney's spouse in the attorney's own divorce action.

ISSUES PRESENTED:

The issue is whether or not the inquiring attorney's interest in the outcome of his/her divorce will materially limit the representation of the client.

OPINION:

If the inquiring attorney reasonably believes the representation of the client will not be adversely affected by his/her own interest and obtains the client's consent after disclosing the facts, the inquiring attorney may continue to represent the client.

REASONING:

Rule 1.7(b) is applicable to this inquiry. In pertinent part, Rule 1.7(b) states:

(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 ....

Rule 1.7(b) addresses the situation where representation of a client will be materially limited by an attorney's own interests. In this inquiry, the attorney's interest, presumably, is the outcome of his/her own divorce. Aside from the fact that opposing counsel in client's divorce is also the opposing counsel in the inquiring attorney's own divorce, the two matters are unrelated. There is no relationship between opposing counsel and the inquiring attorney. Indeed, the opposing counsel represents interests which are adverse to the interests of the inquiring attorney. Whether issues relating to one action become impermissibly intertwined with the other will depend on the professionalism of opposing counsel and the inquiring attorney.

As long as the inquiring attorney reasonably believes that his/her representation of the client will not be adversely affected by the circumstances presented, communicates that belief to the client after full disclosure and obtains the consent of his/her client, he/she may continue to represent the client in the divorce action.