Opinion ID: 3161170
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: conclusion

Text: For the reasons set forth above, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court. The papers in this case shall be returned to that court. 4 Indeed, had Correira represented both Poulin and Audette, he arguably would be in violation of Article V, Rule 1.7(b) of the Supreme Court Rules of Professional Conduct, which provides in pertinent part that “a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if: (1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client[.]” -7- RHODE ISLAND SUPREME COURT CLERK’S OFFICE Clerk’s Office Order/Opinion Cover Sheet TITLE OF CASE: Richard Audette v. Donald Poulin et al. CASE NO: No. 2015-53-Appeal. (PB10-7589) COURT: Supreme Court DATE OPINION FILED: December 9, 2015 JUSTICES: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and Indeglia, JJ. WRITTEN BY: Associate Justice Gilbert V. Indeglia SOURCE OF APPEAL: Providence County Superior Court JUDGE FROM LOWER COURT: