“R.I. Supreme Court Ethics Advisory Panel: Attorneys – Former employer – Conflict” —

• “Where an attorney wishes to represent a client in a suit against a town school district represented by a law firm that previously employed the attorney, the Rules of Professional Conduct do not prohibit the attorney’s representation of the client, as the attorney did not acquire any material information about the town while working for the law firm.”
• “‘The inquiring attorney formerly worked for a law firm that represents school districts in a variety of legal matters, including disputes relating to special education. The inquiring attorney did not participate in any special education matters during his or her time at the firm; rather, he or she provided legal research to partners in a supporting role, handled public records requests, and occasionally appeared at hearings and other proceedings on behalf of clients.”
• “‘Now at a new firm, the inquiring attorney wishes to represent parents and guardians in special education disputes with school districts. He or she has received a client referral, of a guardian concerned that his or her grandchild’s educational rights are being violated (the ‘Client’). The school district in question (the ‘Town’) is currently a client of the inquiring attorney’s former firm and was so during the inquiring attorney’s tenure there. The inquiring attorney reports that he or she did not handle any matters for the Town during his or her time at the former law firm and has no independent knowledge of the Client’s matter. …”
• “‘It is the Panel’s opinion that the inquiring attorney is not prohibited under the Rules of Professional Conduct from representing the Client.. Of particular relevance to here is Rule 1.9(b), which prohibits an attorney from representing a prospective client when three (3) factors are met. First, the matter must be the same or substantially related to one in which the attorney’s former firm had previously represented a client. Second, the former client’s interests must be materially adverse to those of the prospective client. Third, the attorney must have acquired information about the former client protected by Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c) that is material to the matter. The prohibition in Rule 1.9(b) may only be overcome by obtaining the written informed consent of the former client.'”
• “‘While there is no question that the Client’s and Town’s interests are necessarily adverse given the nature of the parties’ dispute regarding the Client’s grandchild’s educational rights, it is unclear from the facts as described by the inquiring attorney whether the Client’s matter is the same or substantially related to one in which the inquiring attorney’s former firm represented the Town. Even if it is, however, the facts indicate that the inquiring attorney never handled any matters for the Town during his or her time at the former firm, including the Client’s case, and has no independent knowledge of the matter. Therefore, the third element cannot be met…”
• “‘Accordingly, the Panel concludes that the inquiring attorney may represent the Client without needing to obtain the informed written consent of the Town…'”

“Philly Judge Under Fire For Promoting Wife’s Cheesesteak Biz” —

• “Pennsylvania’s judicial ethics board has accused a Philadelphia judge of using his position on the bench to promote a cheesesteak restaurant opened by his wife and named in honor of his late parents.”
• “Judge Scott DiClaudio was charged by the Pennsylvania Judicial Conduct Board on Tuesday for allegedly playing up his position on the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas in a series of articles and other media reports about his wife’s eatery, Shay’s Steaks, and during interactions with customers.”
• “The activity, the board said in a complaint, constituted abuse of his office for the advancement of his own economic interests and failed to promote public confidence in the judiciary.”
• “Judge DiClaudio is currently on probation in the Court of Judicial Discipline following a previous ethics case in which the board brought charges over his alleged failure to participate in litigation over money he owed to a suburban social club. The judge was ordered to serve a two-week suspension in 2021 as a result of the ethics case.”
• “According to the new complaint filed this week, in the months after Jackee DiClaudio opened Shay’s Steaks in March 2024, the restaurant was featured in newspaper articles, local news segments and podcasts with direct references to and puns about Judge DiClaudio’s day job as an elected official.”
• “The complaint makes note of one article saying Judge DiClaudio may have been addressed in the courtroom as ‘Whiz Honor.’ In a television news segment, the host enters the restaurant and identifies Judge DiClaudio as a judge.”
• “In January, the complaint says, Judge DiClaudio participated in a podcast to promote the restaurant and spent some time talking about his judicial philosophy and dealing with mental health issues in the courtroom.”
• “Documents accompanying the complaint include pages of reviews from social media and online review websites where customers describe meeting Judge DiClaudio and mention his position. In one incident, the complaint alleges, a customer was invited to watch Judge DiClaudio in the courtroom.”
• “Judge DiClaudio began his 10-year term with the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas in 2016 and is up for retention in the 2025 general election in November.”