Updated August 2026. Since Rhode Island’s revival window — sometimes called a lookback window — opened on July 1, 2026, news outlets report that more than 50 civil lawsuits have already been filed against the Diocese of Providence and related entities under the new law: the legislation amending the statute of limitations for child victim claims (H-7200a/S-2616a), enacted as P.L. 2026, ch. 081, amending R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-51. The window closes June 30, 2028. (Litigation count: WJAR/NBC 10 reporting, July 31, 2026.)

The Diocese of Providence as an institutional defendant

Clergy abuse litigation in Rhode Island is, at its core, institutional litigation. The individual who committed the abuse is rarely the only party who bears legal responsibility — and, in many older cases, is deceased. The more consequential defendant is usually the institution that placed the abuser in a position of trust over children and failed to protect them: in the great majority of Rhode Island cases, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Providence. Naming the Diocese as a defendant is not a novel theory; it is the ordinary structure of these claims, and it is the reason a case can succeed even when the abuser can no longer be sued.

This page is written at the institutional level. Consistent with our firm’s approach and with the privacy of survivors, it does not name individual accused clergy; the Rhode Island Attorney General maintains the official public record of credibly accused clergy, and we route readers there rather than republishing name-lists.

What the Attorney General documented

In March 2026, after an investigation that began in 2019 and reviewed more than 250,000 pages of diocesan records, the Rhode Island Attorney General released a 284-page report on child sexual abuse in the Diocese of Providence. Its findings are the documentary backbone of the current wave of litigation. According to the report, the Diocese had 75 clergy members credibly accused of child sexual abuse — broken down by the Attorney General as 61 diocesan priests, 13 religious-order priests, and 1 extern priest (per RI AG Report, p.12). The abuse the investigation documented spanned from 1950 to 2011 and involved more than 300 child victims (printed pp.57–58).

Beyond the count, the report described institutional conduct — the pattern that matters most for civil liability: the Diocese, the Attorney General found, often responded to complaints by transferring accused priests to new assignments rather than reporting them, prioritizing the avoidance of scandal over the protection of children. The report is an investigative findings document, not a court judgment, and “credibly accused” is the Attorney General’s evidentiary standard, not a criminal conviction. You can read the Attorney General’s own summary on the official Diocese Report page. Our companion page explains what the report says and what it does not.

Who can sue, and by when: the 2026 revival window

For decades, most Rhode Island survivors were barred from suing because the statute of limitations had run long before they were able to come forward. The 2026 law changes that for a limited time. It is worth understanding precisely what the statute does, because the field tends to describe it only in slogans.

The law was enacted as Rhode Island Public Law 2026, ch. 081 (House Bill 7200 Substitute A / Senate Bill 2616 Substitute A), signed by Governor McKee on June 11, 2026, and effective July 1, 2026. It does two distinct things. First, going forward, it sets a longer limitations period: a survivor may bring a claim within the later of 35 years from the act, or 7 years from when the survivor discovered (or reasonably should have discovered) that the injury was caused by the abuse, with the clock tolled until the child turns 18. This structure applies to both the perpetrator and the non-perpetrator institution.

Second — and this is the part that reopens old cases — the law revives claims that were already time-barred. In the words of the enacted statute, “a cause of action for damages that involves sexual conduct or sexual contact with a child … and that would be time barred because of an applicable statute of limitations shall be revived and shall be commenced by no later than June 30, 2028” (R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-51(a)(3), as enacted by P.L. 2026 ch. 081 / S-2616A). That is what “revival” means: a claim that was legally dead because the deadline had passed is brought back to life, but only if it is filed during the two-year window that opened July 1, 2026 and closes June 30, 2028. After that date, the window closes and previously time-barred claims are barred again.

A few practical points follow from the text. Eligibility does not turn on when the abuse happened — the revival reaches conduct going back decades, which is why the Attorney General’s 1950–2011 findings are directly relevant. It applies to institutional and supervisory defendants, not only the individual abuser. And it is a hard deadline: the window is two years, not indefinite. Our pages on who can file and the filing deadline go through eligibility and timing in more detail, and the revival-window overview covers the law itself.

One honest caveat. Revival statutes of this kind are constitutionally untested in Rhode Island. Courts in other states have split on whether a legislature may revive an expired claim — some have upheld these windows, others have struck them down as reviving a “vested” defense. The Rhode Island act includes a severability clause (§ 9-1-55), so that if the revival provision were challenged and narrowed, the remainder of the statute would survive. No court has yet ruled on the Rhode Island window, and we make no representation about how one will.

The credibly accused, at the aggregate level

Because survivors often want to understand the scope of what was documented, here is the aggregate picture the Attorney General reported, without naming individuals. Of the 75 credibly accused clergy, the report summarized 72 in its Appendix A. A separate Appendix C listed 11 additional priests who served in the Diocese but were credibly accused by another diocese or religious order — a separate category on which the Rhode Island Attorney General made no independent determination. “Credibly accused” is the Attorney General’s investigative standard and is not the same as a criminal conviction; individuals who have been charged are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. The Attorney General publishes the official roster on its Diocese Report site; that public list, not a law-firm page, is the authoritative source for names.

Who can be held liable: institutional responsibility

The legal engine of these cases is institutional liability — the set of theories under which the Diocese, as an employer and supervisor, can be held responsible for harm caused by clergy in its charge. In plain terms, an institution can be liable not because it committed the abuse, but because of its own conduct in hiring, supervising, retaining, and overseeing the person who did, and in how it responded to warning signs.

The recognized theories include negligent hiring (placing a person in a role over children without reasonable vetting), negligent supervision and retention (failing to monitor, or keeping a person in ministry after notice of a risk), failure to report, and concealment. Many of these turn on a single standard: whether the institution knew or should have known of the danger and failed to act reasonably. The Attorney General’s findings — that complaints were met with transfers rather than removal or reporting — are precisely the kind of documented institutional conduct that this theory addresses. (The report also described a finding regarding the destruction of certain records, which the Diocese disputed; both the finding and the denial are part of the public record.)

This is also why a case can proceed even when the individual abuser has died: the institution’s liability rests on the institution’s own acts and omissions, which do not disappear with the perpetrator. We treat institutional liability in full on our page, clergy abuse institutional liability in Rhode Island, and address the deceased-abuser situation on can I sue if the priest has died and can you sue the Diocese of Providence.

How these cases actually work

At a high level, a clergy abuse claim under the revival window proceeds like other civil litigation against an institutional defendant, with a few features specific to this context. A claim is initiated by filing a complaint within the window. The Attorney General’s report frequently serves as an evidentiary foundation: it is a public, official account of institutional conduct, and the 250,000-plus pages of diocesan records the investigation reviewed point to the documentary universe that discovery in a civil case can reach. The case then moves through the ordinary stages — pleadings, discovery, motions, and either resolution or trial.

One structural question shapes the path more than any other: whether the institution remains in ordinary civil litigation or seeks reorganization in bankruptcy. In a number of other states, dioceses have filed for Chapter 11 and resolved abuse claims through a court-supervised settlement trust rather than individual lawsuits. That changes how, where, and on what timeline claims are resolved. The Diocese of Providence has not filed for bankruptcy, and there is no public basis to claim that it has or will — it does not appear on the national list of Catholic organizations that have filed. We explain the litigation process in depth on how clergy abuse lawsuits against a diocese work, what shapes how long a case takes, and the bankruptcy mechanism (as it has played out elsewhere) on our diocese bankruptcy and claims page.

Where reorganization does occur in other jurisdictions, the mechanism is worth understanding in outline, because it changes the survivor’s practical question. A compensation fund is typically assembled from three sources — the institution’s own assets, contributions from parishes and affiliated entities, and the proceeds of historic liability insurance policies — and claims are then resolved through a single court-supervised settlement trust that distributes awards on a severity-based matrix rather than through individual trials. That structure tends to globalize and standardize recovery, in contrast to the individualized path of ordinary civil litigation. Whether a Rhode Island case would proceed in court or, hypothetically, through such a process is one of the most consequential questions for any claimant — and, to be clear, the Diocese of Providence has taken no step toward bankruptcy. The detailed treatment of how funds, insurance, and reorganization interact belongs on our settlement page; the point here is simply that the path, not only the merits, shapes how a case is resolved.

How We Approach These Cases

Institutional cases are built on evidence: assignment records, personnel files, the Attorney General’s investigative findings, and the account you provide when you are ready. Our work starts with the record — identifying the correct corporate defendants, matching your dates and parish to the documented assignment history, and preserving the evidence that supports your claim.

Survivors who come forward seek different things. Some seek justice in a courtroom; others want acknowledgment, accountability, compensation, or simply answers. Defining what justice looks like for you is part of the work — and you decide it.

Compensation for Clergy Abuse Survivors: What the Law Allows You to Recover

Rhode Island civil law recognizes that childhood sexual abuse causes real and lasting harm, and the categories of recovery reflect that. Without quoting any figure — because no honest page can predict the value of an individual case, and we do not — the categories a survivor may pursue generally include compensation for the harm itself: past and future medical and psychological treatment, the long-term effects on a survivor’s life and capacity to work, and the pain, suffering, and emotional injury the abuse caused. This page is educational; questions about what a particular situation might involve are exactly the kind of thing to discuss directly with a Rhode Island attorney.

How do I know if I have a case against the Diocese of Providence?

There is no checklist that substitutes for a case evaluation, but the questions an attorney asks are predictable, and you can preview them. Did the abuse occur when you were under 18, and was the person connected to the Diocese, a parish, a school, or another institution? Does the timing fit either the ordinary statute of limitations or the revival window that runs through June 30, 2028? And is there an institutional dimension — an entity that employed, supervised, or had reason to know about the person — that a non-perpetrator claim could reach?

Notice what is not on that list. You do not need the priest to be alive. You do not need a criminal conviction, a police report, or documents in hand — corroborating records are something an attorney develops, not something you must arrive with. And you do not need certainty about dates: decades-old memories of a parish, a school year, or an assignment can be anchored against the official record, which is part of what our verified database of the credibly accused list is built for. Our guide to whether you have a case — linked in the resources below — walks through these screening questions in more detail, and a confidential conversation answers them faster than any page can.

What does it cost to hire a Rhode Island clergy abuse lawyer?

Nothing up front, and nothing at all unless the case succeeds. Like nearly all plaintiff-side abuse and injury work, these cases are handled on a contingency-fee basis: the fee is a percentage of the recovery, agreed in writing at the start, and it is paid out of the result rather than out of your pocket. We offer free case evaluations, and there is no fee unless there is a recovery. The firm advances court costs and litigation expenses, and those expenses are repaid from the recovery. You are not responsible for court costs or litigation expenses if there is no recovery, unless a court directs otherwise. The attorney’s fee is a percentage of the gross recovery, calculated before expenses are deducted.

A few specifics survivors often ask about. The initial conversation is free and confidential, and it carries no obligation — talking to us is not filing a lawsuit. Case expenses (records requests, filing fees, experts) are commonly advanced by the firm and reconciled from the recovery; the engagement letter spells out exactly how yours will be handled — read it, and ask about anything unclear, before signing with any firm. And because the fee is contingent, the evaluation is honest by construction: no one is paid to take an unviable case.

Why Rhode Island Survivors Work With Marin & Murphy Law Firm

When you contact this firm, you are talking to the attorneys themselves — not an intake service. Matthew T. Marin has practiced law in Rhode Island since 2009 and is admitted in Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, South Carolina, and the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island. His practice concentrates on complex civil litigation, including institutional childhood sexual abuse claims under Rhode Island’s revival window. Stefanie A. Murphy is an experienced Rhode Island trial attorney, admitted in Rhode Island, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and the U.S. District Courts for the Districts of Rhode Island, Connecticut, and Massachusetts.

Our attorneys built and maintain the research this site is known for — verified assignment-history pages for every priest named on Rhode Island’s official lists, checked against the Attorney General’s 2026 report page by page. That is the level of preparation these cases receive. We are a Rhode Island firm, with lawyers in offices at 177 N Main Street, Providence and 6 Wanton Shippee Road, East Greenwich — and 5.0 stars across 449 Google reviews in Providence as of August 2026. Consultations are free and confidential, and there is no fee unless there is a recovery.

Why does local Rhode Island counsel matter?

Since Rhode Island’s revival window opened, out-of-state firms have begun advertising for Rhode Island clergy abuse cases. Survivors are free to choose any counsel they trust; what follows is the factual case for choosing counsel that is actually here.

These cases are filed in Rhode Island courts, under Rhode Island’s statute, against Rhode Island institutions. Local counsel is licensed here and appears in these courts as a matter of course — no referral to co-counsel you have never met. The facts of these cases are local, too: the parishes, the schools, the assignment histories. We maintain an individually verified page for every name on the official Rhode Island lists — each checked against both the Diocese’s records and the Attorney General’s report, with a published corrections policy and a named attorney accountable for accuracy. That verification standard exists because we practice here, our names are on it, and Rhode Island readers — survivors, families, courts — are the audience we answer to.

None of this is a criticism of any particular firm. It is a description of what to ask any lawyer you are considering: Are you licensed in Rhode Island? Who will actually litigate my case? And how do you verify what you publish about it?

We put those questions — and how to weigh the answers — in a practical guide: how to choose a clergy abuse lawyer in Rhode Island.

Talk with us — confidentially

If you are considering whether Rhode Island’s revival window applies to you, the most reliable next step is a confidential conversation with a Rhode Island attorney who can look at your specific facts. If you are weighing whether your situation qualifies, our page on whether you have a clergy abuse case walks through the factors, and why representation matters in an institutional claim explains what a lawyer actually does. What you share is confidential, there is no cost to ask, and reaching out does not commit you to anything. The window is open only until June 30, 2028.

Town-by-town verified records: Providence, Cranston, Pawtucket, Woonsocket, Warwick, West Warwick, Newport, and East Providence — plus the parochial schools in the official record. Survivors concerned about privacy can also learn how to file as Jane Doe.

Rhode Island’s revival window is not limited to clergy cases. Survivors of abuse in state-supervised care — foster homes, group homes, and state facilities — can start with our DCYF claims overview.

A Safe Way to Ask

Coming forward takes courage, and most abuse survivors carry this for decades before telling anyone. You set the pace here. A conversation with us is confidential and free, we treat what you share with respect and dignity, and we understand the trauma that can accompany histories of childhood sexual assault or abuse — including why many sexual abuse survivors have never told their families. We are here to listen. Nothing is filed and no one is contacted unless you decide. If now is not the time, the information on this page is yours either way.

Call (401) 269-3381 — Free, Confidential Consultation

Speak directly with a Rhode Island attorney about your clergy abuse claim — free consultation, completely confidential, and no fee unless there is a recovery. Offices in Providence and East Greenwich. If calling is hard, the form above reaches us the same way, at your pace.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I sue for clergy abuse in Rhode Island if it happened decades ago? Possibly. Rhode Island’s 2026 revival window reopens certain previously time-barred childhood sexual abuse claims, and revived claims must be commenced by no later than June 30, 2028. Because the revival reaches conduct going back decades, the age of the abuse does not by itself bar a claim — but whether your situation qualifies is fact-specific and should be reviewed by a Rhode Island attorney.

Can the Diocese of Providence be held responsible, not just the abuser? Yes, that is the core of these cases. An institution can be liable for its own conduct — negligent hiring, negligent supervision or retention, failure to report, or concealment — under a standard of whether it knew or should have known of the danger and failed to act reasonably. Because that liability rests on the institution’s own acts, a claim can proceed even if the individual abuser has died.

Has the Diocese of Providence filed for bankruptcy? No. The Diocese of Providence has not filed for bankruptcy, and there is no public basis to claim that it has or will; it does not appear on the national list of Catholic organizations that have filed Chapter 11. If that ever changed, it would affect how claims are resolved, which we explain on our litigation-process and bankruptcy pages.

Is Rhode Island’s revival window definitely constitutional? It is untested. Revival statutes have been challenged in other states with split results — some upheld, some struck down. No court has yet ruled on the Rhode Island window, the act includes a severability clause, and we make no representation about how a court will rule.

How much does a clergy abuse lawyer cost in Rhode Island? Nothing up front: these cases are handled on contingency, with the fee coming out of any recovery under a written agreement. We offer free case evaluations, and there is no fee unless there is a recovery.

Do I need records or proof before contacting a lawyer? No. Corroborating records — assignment histories, school and parish records, prior complaints — are developed by counsel during the case. What you bring is your account; the evaluation is free and confidential.

Related: every name on the official lists — with verbatim statuses and sources — is on the Diocese of Providence credibly accused list, explained. How diocesan settlements have played out elsewhere: Los Angeles, Rockville Centre, and San Francisco.

About This Information

About this information: This page is general legal information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Whether any individual has a claim depends on the specific facts and must be evaluated by a licensed Rhode Island attorney.

About the Attorney General’s report: The findings of the Rhode Island Attorney General’s 2026 report are the results of an investigation, not determinations of civil or criminal liability by a court. “Credibly accused” is the Attorney General’s investigative standard; it is not a criminal conviction. Individuals who have been charged are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

About the law’s status: Rhode Island’s revival-window law (P.L. 2026 ch. 081, effective July 1, 2026) is new. As of the date of publication, no court has ruled on whether the revival of previously time-barred claims against institutions is constitutional. We make no representation about how any court will rule.

Updated July 2026.

Related: Rhode Island clergy abuse settlements.