R.I.Ethics opinion
Rhode Island ethics panel bars lawyer from representing the party his clients are suing in its insurer's coverage action
The Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel said in Opinion 2026-09, issued September 10, 2026, that a lawyer representing plaintiffs in a civil suit against a healthcare provider may not also represent that provider, as co-counsel, in a declaratory judgment action in which the provider's insurer seeks to deny coverage for the suit. The panel found the clients and the provider directly adverse under Rule 1.7(a)(1), a material-limitation risk under 1.7(a)(2), and the conflict not consentable under 1.7(b).
Opinion (Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel) →
Key points
- The lawyer's clients are suing a healthcare provider; the provider's insurer filed a coverage declaratory action, and both wanted the lawyer as the provider's co-counsel.Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel
- Panel said representation triggers Rule 1.7(a)(1) as Provider and Clients are directly adverse in ongoing litigation.Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel
- Panel said Rule 1.7(a)(2) also triggered by material limitation risk from duties to Clients.Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel
- Panel found Rule 1.7(b)(1) cannot be met because lawyer cannot provide competent representation to Provider.Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel
- Panel found Rule 1.7(b)(3) cannot be met due to nonconsentable directly adverse institutional interests.Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel
- Opinion cites Rule 1.7 Comments 6, 8, 13, 14, 16 and prior Op. 2025-13.Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel
Sources1 article across 1 outlet
Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel