Rhode Island Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel Op. 2025-15: “Attorneys – Conflict – Prospective client” —

• “Where (1) an attorney agreed to represent the family of a nursing home resident who had recently fallen and died and (2) approximately one week later, the intake department at the attorney’s law firm conducted an interview of a prospective client who worked as a nurse and potentially was involved in the fatal fall, the attorney’s sole remedy is to withdraw from the representation of the decedent’s family, as the nurse’s intake interview created a conflict under the Rules of Professional Conduct.”
• “‘The inquiring attorney agreed to represent the family of a nursing home resident who had recently fallen and died (the ‘Decedent’). Approximately one (1) week later, the intake department at the inquiring attorney’s law firm conducted an interview of a prospective client who described him- or herself as a nurse who had worked at the same nursing home at which the Decedent had fallen and died (the ‘Nurse’).”
• “The Nurse sought representation because a resident to whom he or she may have incorrectly administered medication had fallen and died, thereby potentially threatening the status of his or her nursing license and exposing her to potential civil liability. Although the Nurse did not mention the resident’s name during the intake interview, other information he or she did divulge — such as the dates on which the medication had been allegedly incorrectly administered — led the inquiring attorney to strongly believe the Nurse was referring to the Decedent.”
• “‘The inquiring attorney reports that the intake interview was conducted entirely by office staff and no attorney from his or her law firm had or has since spoken to the Nurse. Nonetheless, he or she wonders whether the Nurse’s interview creates a conflict requiring him or her to withdraw from representing the Decedent’s family. …”
• “‘It is the Panel’s opinion that the Nurse’s intake interview does create a conflict under the Rules of Professional Conduct requiring the inquiring attorney to withdraw from the representation of the Decedent’s family. …”
• “‘As an initial matter, because the Nurse actively sought representation from the inquiring attorney, it is clear he or she is a prospective client within the meaning of Rule 1.18 of the Rules of Professional Conduct. …”
• “‘… Rule 1.18 places certain limitations on an attorney’s use of information gleaned from a prospective client. … Second, Rule 1.18(c) prohibits an attorney and his or her associates from ‘represent[ing] a client with interests materially adverse to those of a prospective client in the same or a substantially related matter if the lawyer received information from the prospective client that could be significantly harmful to that person in the matter,’ with certain exceptions set forth in Rule 1.18(d)(1) and (2).”
• “‘It is this second limitation, under Rule 1.18(c), which is of relevance here. Its applicability turns on two (2) factors. First, the interests of the Decedent’s family and the Nurse must be materially adverse in the same or a substantially related matter. Second, the inquiring attorney must have received information from the Nurse that could be significantly harmful to him or her in the matter.”
• “‘The Panel finds that the facts as described by the inquiring attorney satisfy both prongs of Rule 1.18(c). First, there exists the substantial risk that the interests of the Decedent’s family and of the Nurse are materially adverse in the same matter due to the Nurse’s potential involvement in the Decedent’s death. … Second, such information would undoubtedly be of significant harm to the Nurse in this matter, as it would bear on both the Nurse’s possible liability in a civil action as well as the risk of losing his or her nursing license. Together, these facts are sufficiently disqualifying to trigger Rule 1.18(c)’s prohibition on representation here. …”
• “‘It follows that, given the applicability of Rule 1.18(c) to this matter, the inquiring attorney’s sole remedy is to withdraw from the representation of the Decedent’s family. …”
• “‘In withdrawing from the representation, the Panel urges the inquiring attorney to take all reasonable steps required by Rule 1.16(d) to mitigate the consequences to the Decedent’s family of his or her withdrawal, including, but not limited to, providing notice to them of his or her intention to terminate representation — thereby permitting them time to select replacement counsel — returning their papers and property, and refunding any unearned fees or expenses, if any. This is a non-exhaustive list of mitigation steps; the particular circumstances of the matter may require additional efforts. …’ “
• Full opinion: here.

“Terry Rozier paying for friend’s lawyer in gambling case a potential conflict, feds say” —

• “Federal prosecutors asked the judge overseeing the illegal sports gambling case involving Terry Rozier to determine if a conflict of interest exists because the Miami Heat guard is paying the legal fees of one of his codefendants. Prosecutors said in a new legal filing on Tuesday that Rozier’s lawyer may ultimately try to blame that codefendant, Deniro Laster, for the crime as well, allegations that Rozier’s lawyer has denied.”
• “Lawyers for the U.S. Attorney’s Office said in the filing that Rozier is covering legal fees for Evan Corcoran, the attorney representing Laster, and that they want the judge to determine if that relationship could impact Corcoran’s representation of Laster. They have asked Judge LaShann DeArcy Hall for a hearing that would, at a minimum, make Laster aware of those potential conflicts, and could possibly lead to him getting a new lawyer.”
• “Rozier, who has made more than $100 million during his NBA career, is longtime friends with Laster. Prosecutors allege Rozier told Laster that Rozier was leaving a March 2023 game early. Laster, according to an indictment filed in October, sold that information to a group of sports gamblers, who then made wagers on Rozier’s statistics for that game. Rozier and Laster were both arrested and charged this fall on two federal counts and have both pleaded not guilty.”
• “The prosecutors said in the filing that Jim Trusty, Rozier’s lawyer, has made public comments ‘suggesting that Rozier’s defense strategy at trial will be to inculpate Laster.'”
• “‘Neither Terry’s longstanding generosity towards a friend since childhood nor Evan Corcoran’s representation create any actual ethical issues in this case,’ Trusty told The Athletic. ‘My comments about Mr. Laster have not been to ‘blame’ him for anything – my focus has been on the fact that even if the government’s allegations about Mr. Laster are true, that does not mean Mr. Rozier did anything wrong.'”
• “‘The primary concern is that this payment structure creates an obvious incentive for the attorney’s divided loyalties between (i) his client Laster and (ii) the person paying his legal fees, co-defendant Rozier,’ the assistant U.S. attorneys said in the filing. ‘Particularly in light of Rozier’s attorney’s public comments placing the blame on a ‘friend’ who is almost certainly Laster.'”
• “Prosecutors pointed to Trusty’s comments in the days after Rozier’s arrest, where he said that Rozier told a friend that he would come out of the game. Trusty told CNN that Rozier ‘relied on a bad friend’ and told Fox News, ‘whatever that friend did is not on Terry (Rozier).'”
• “Prosecutors have called for the judge to name a lawyer for Laster who would advise him on any potential conflicts of interest. They did not say that the issues they raised are disqualifying for Corcoran to serve as Laster’s attorney.”
• “Rozier is also waiting on a response to a motion he made last week to dismiss the case. The motion has been filed to the prosecutor’s office, but has not been made public yet. Trusty indicated in a court hearing last week that Corcoran would join that filing as well.”