I do not consent to you contacting my client

30 Aug 20
robot unconsenting2.jpg
robot unconsenting2.jpg

In the US, lawyers are ethically prohibited from contacting a party the lawyer knows is represented (or whose employer is represented) by counsel regarding a matter that is the subject of that representation—unless such counsel consents. In the transactional context, compliance with the rule can be, at best, socially awkward and, at worst, an ethical trap for the unwary.

There’s an enlightening Redline collaboration underway about the practical application of this rule, in which questions like the following are pondered:

In the absence of knowledge that the other side is represented, should counsel insist on not attending phone conferences unless she can confirm that the other side’s lawyer is present or consents?

If a company is “big enough”, shouldn’t counsel assume representation, despite the actual knowledge requirement?

May counsel rely on the assurances of the other side’s non-legal staff that the other side’s lawyer consents to meeting attendance?

As presence is not equal to consent, may counsel direct an email to a represented person so long as the other side’s lawyer is copied?

What about "ghost writing" emails for a client?

The no-contact rule is not without its detractors. Professor Leubsdorf questions why the consent of the represented party is insufficient to waive operation of the rule. The rule anoints the lawyer as the absolute arbiter of whether the client may contact the other side's lawyer, setting up an inherent conflict of interest:

If the lawyer is paid by the hour, he will profit if all communications go through him. In addition, direct communication with opposing counsel may reveal to a client that his lawyer is lazy or uninformed, or that the client’s prospects of success differ from what his lawyer has led him to believe. These possibilities may well bias the lawyer against consenting to direct communications with his client.

All in all, I do not believe that it is justifiable to empower lawyers to decide whether their clients will be able to talk with other lawyers. The rule so providing is not rooted in antiquity, serves no compelling interest, and was probably influenced by an improper desire to protect lawyers against their own clients. Granting the possible dangers of uncounseled communications, it by no means follows that the lawyer is best suited to decide whether a client should risk them, particularly when the client can obtain the lawyer's advice before deciding. In its present form, [the no-contact rule] gives lawyers unnecessary power over their clients' decisions and may lead to conscious or unconscious subordination of the interests of the clients.

John Leubsdorf, Communicating with Another Lawyer’s Client: The Lawyer’s Veto and the Client’s Interests (U. Penn L. Rev. 1979).
Geoffrey C. Hazard, Jr. and Dana Remus Irwin, in Toward a Revised 4.2 No-Contact Rule (Hastings L.J. 2009), have similarly noted the paternalism exhibited by the rule and how it can work against the client’s interests. “By placing complete control of communications in the lawyer’s hands, this approach presumes the role of the traditional, faithful lawyer. But fulfillment of this role is contradicted by the very initiative the client is undertaking—contacting another lawyer after deciding a retained lawyer is not serving the client’s best interests.”

The authors propose reforms to the rule only after first making the case for the rule’s repeal in its entirety, and the case they make is not without merit. "There is a strong argument that the Rule should be repealed and its work done by Rule 4.3—that is, a lawyer should not present himself to a non-client as disinterested, should not give legal advice (except to consult another lawyer), and should not negotiate with a person he knows to be represented."
Query Thread Page

On this page you can:
  • subscribe to this query
    By subscribing, you will receive email (as frequently as you specify) of new activity in this query.
  • vote up or vote down queries and replies
    Voting is a generalized proxy for your assessment of the worth, quality, articulation, etc of a query or reply. Voting up a reply or query increases the reply/query author's mojo by one. After you vote, you have five minutes to undo it.
  • reply to the query or add a comment to the query or any reply
    A reply is a serious substantive response, worthy of addition to the knowledge being recorded for all of us here. Comments, simply, are for responses that are not replies (questions, clarifications, caveats, etc). You must scroll all the way down to add a reply; might as well read all of the replies on the way down. If you would like to include with your reply new legal text for others to edit, feel free to add a clause. Adding a reply gives you one mojo.
  • edit a clause (quick-reply)
    If you want to quickly add a reply that is an edit of another member's legal text, click the edit clause link on the clause you wish to edit, and you will be taken to the bottom of the page, with the text of the clause ready for your edits.
  • select best reply (if you are the author of the query)
    If you authored this query, be sure to select the reply that you believe is the best (and consider explaining why you selected this reply as best in a comment to that reply). You receive one mojo for doing so. The author of the reply you select as best will receive four mojo or the bounty award you posted for this query. You can change your mind as many times as you want. If you de-select a best reply, the reply author loses two mojo or the bounty mojo awarded, and you lose one mojo.
  • edit/update or delete query (if you are the query author)
    If you authored this query, you may edit it at any time, and delete it before a reply has been posted to it. Clauses may be edited only if no other member has redlined that clause. You may also add a bounty award or increase already-posted bounty, at any time (even after a reply has been posted).
  • flag (ie complain about) a query, reply or comment
    Use as sparingly as appropriate given the circumstances.
  • quiver and favorite
    You may add/remove this query to/from your favorites, and add/remove clauses in this query to/from your quiver. If you are a guild moderator, you can similarly add/remove this query to/from guild favorites, and add/remove clauses here to/from your guild quiver.

A friendly reminder: be excellent to each other and remember the human.

FAQs | How do I ...?
What are subscriptions?
Redline allows you to subscribe to queries (so that you can be alerted to new replies and comments that are posted to those queries), members (so that you can know of new queries posted by that member) and guilds (so that you can track new queries posted with tags of guilds you follow). With subscriptions, you are notified via email, and on the Home (Your Notifications) page, of new activity corresponding to your subscriptions. Via the Settings/Subscriptions page, you can manage your subscriptions, including altering the timing of notification emails.