Model Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 4.2

PRC 193. The notice states that in an action for personal injury for a motor vehicle accident, counsel for the plaintiffs may question the unrepresented defendant, even if the uninsured motorist insurer who elected to defend the claim on behalf of the defendant is represented in the case by counsel. The Committee understands that article 4.2 raises confusing questions for many members of the Bar Association as to who is protected by the rule and under what circumstances a lawyer may contact a representative or employee of an organization who may have information about a case. The Committee concluded that it might be useful to provide some guidance on the rule on contacting members of public and private organizations. Rule 4.2 of the American Bar Association Model Rules of Professional Conduct states: “When representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the purpose of the representation with a person whom he knows will be represented by another lawyer in the case unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law, the law or a court order. (2002). Counsel for the Department should be aware that commentary 5 of model rule 4.2 provides that “the fact that a communication does not violate any federal or state constitutional law is not sufficient to establish that the communication is authorized under that rule.” Although the rule may vary from State to State, each State has adopted a code of conduct that governs communication with represented persons. Ministry counsel should be guided by the rules and interpretations of this rule of the relevant state or federal district court and should not rely solely on the ABA Model Rule and its interpretation to determine what constitutes appropriate conduct, unless required by the relevant Code of Professional Conduct. Nevertheless, in general, it may be useful to read Formal Notice 95-396 of the ABA Ethics and Professional Responsibility Committee “Communication with Represented Persons” (24 July 1995) and the Annotated Model Rules of Professional Conduct published by the ABA Professional Responsibility Centre. RPC 184.

The expert opinion states that a counterparty lawyer may communicate directly with the pathologist who performed the autopsy of the applicant`s deceased without the consent of the personal representative of the deceased`s estate. How the term “represented person” is defined when an organization is represented. Contact rules differ from state to state in how they define a “represented person” when that “person” is an organizational unit. Some States prohibit communication only with high-ranking personnel who may bind the organization in the case in which the organization is represented. Other States prohibit communication on the matter on behalf of persons with leadership responsibilities on behalf of the organization. Many States prohibit communications with persons whose acts or omissions in connection with this case may be imputed to the Organization for the purposes of civil or criminal liability. And a number of States exclude any contact with any employee or part of the company whose declaration may constitute an admission on the part of the organization. The contact rules of many States do not prohibit contact with former employees of a represented organization; But even if communication with former employees is allowed, the discussion should not contain confidential information. While the rule is intended to ensure the protection of persons represented by counsel, it is also clear from the rule and commentary that rule 4.2 operates differently when the organization is a government entity, since constitutional rights under the First Amendment protect an individual`s right to resolve complaints directly with the government and its officials. In this context, rule 4.2 (c) expressly recognizes that counsel may communicate with a government official regarding client complaints that he or she is entitled to compensation, provided that certain disclosures are made. Commentary [9J indicates that, subject to the above disclosure, communication with government officials authorized to resolve complaints is permitted without the prior consent of the government lawyer, but does not allow a lawyer to bypass the government lawyer on any matter that may arise in disputes with the government. Rather, the subsection allows lawyers to access government decision-makers on genuine grievances, such as arguing that the government`s fundamental policy position on a dispute is wrong or that government staff behave inappropriately with respect to certain aspects of the dispute.

It does not provide direct access to common disputes, such as ordinary discovery disputes or time extensions. Official Ethics Report 2011 15. The opinion states that under the North Carolina Public Records Act, a lawyer may contact a government official to identify a public records custodian and the public records custodian to file a request for access to public records related to representation, even if the custodian is an opposing party or an employee of an opposing party. whose lawyer does not agree with the communication. The following revision of commentary [3] was made to incorporate the wording of commentary [3] of the ABA Rule prohibiting communication with a represented party, even if the represented person or counsel initiated the contact. CPR 39. The expert opinion states that a lawyer cannot submit claims directly to an insurance company that has appointed a lawyer to represent its insured, unless the lawyer consents. RPC 202. The notice states that a lawyer may communicate in writing with the members of an elected body represented by counsel in a matter if the purpose of the notice is to request that the matter be placed on the agenda of the public meeting of the elected body and a copy of the written communication be given to counsel for the elected body.

RPC 67th Opinion states that a lawyer may generally question a mere employee of an opposing legal party without the knowledge or consent of the corporate party or his counsel. “Obviously, most former employees of the city`s legal department have information that is protected by solicitor-client privilege or otherwise confidential as they serve as legal counsel to the city on various matters. The prohibition on lawyers communicating with former employees who have been exposed to large-scale privileged information cannot be interpreted broadly as preventing a lawyer from conducting ex parte interviews with employees who have been exposed to privileged information on other matters, but who have not been fully exposed to privileged information about the matter in which the lawyer is involved. Nevertheless, the lawyer conducting such interviews must also scrupulously avoid interfering with privileges regarding other matters during the conversation. Rogozin, 164 f.