2007-07.

• Case Date: June 07, 2007
• Court: Rhode Island

Rhode Island Ethics Opinion 2007. 2007-07. Rhode Island Supreme CourtEthics Advisory PanelOpinion No. 2007-07, Request No. 936Issued June 7, 2007FACTS The inquiring attorney represented a corporate client in 2005 in petitions before a city zoning board. The inquiring attorney states that the matter has been fully adjudicated, and that he/she has had no further involvement with the client. The client now has plans to develop real estate in another town. Representatives of the client who worked with the inquiring attorney in 2005 recommended the inquiring attorney to corporate representatives who are assigned to the project in the other town. In March 2007, the inquiring attorney had lunch with corporate representatives for the new project, at which time there was discussion about the company's intention for the project in the other town. The inquiring attorney states that at the lunch there was discussion about the general philosophy of how he/she represents zoning clients, and of his past work. The company representatives inquired about the inquiring attorney's contacts in the town and about whether he/she had done other work in the town. They informed the inquiring attorney that they were speaking with and considering several other Rhode Island zoning lawyers about providing legal services related to the project. The inquiring attorney states that no plans or drawings were presented, and no substantive information was discussed relative to the project. The company hired another law firm for the development in the other town. In April 2007 individuals who abut the site of the client's proposed development in the other town and who oppose the development requested the inquiring attorney to represent them. ISSUE The inquiring attorney asks whether it would be a conflict of interest to represent the individuals against his/her former corporate client. OPINION Pursuant to Rule 1.9 of the Rules of Professional Conduct, the inquiring attorney's representation of individuals who oppose a former client's development of real estate in one town after he/she represented the client in zoning matters for a development in another town is permissible, as the matters are not the same or substantially related. REASONING The corporate client is a former client of the inquiring attorney, and therefore Rule 1.9 applies. After the...