(i) A lawyer
shall not acquire a proprietary interest in the cause of action or subject
matter of litigation the lawyer is conducting for a client, except that the
lawyer may:
(1) acquire a lien authorized by
law to secure the lawyer's fee or expenses, provided the requirements of Rule
1.8(a) are satisfied; and
(2)
contract with a client for a reasonable contingent fee in a civil case, except
as prohibited by Rule 1.5.
While lawyers are associated in a firm, a prohibition in the
foregoing paragraphs (a) through (i), that applies to any one of them shall
apply to all of them.
Comment
Note: See Rule 1.19 for the prohibition on
client-lawyer sexual relationships.
Business Transactions Between Client and Lawyer
[1] A lawyer's legal skill and training,
together with the relationship of trust and confidence between lawyer and
client, create the possibility of overreaching when the lawyer participates in
a business, property or financial transaction with a client, for example, a
loan or sales transaction or a lawyer investment on behalf of a client. The
requirements of paragraph (a) must be met even when the transaction is not
closely related to the subject matter of the representation, as when a lawyer
drafting a will for a client learns that the client needs money for unrelated
expenses and offers to make a loan to the client. See Rule 5.7. It also applies
to lawyers purchasing property from estates they represent. It does not apply
to ordinary fee arrangements between client and lawyer, which are governed by
Rule 1.5, although its requirements must be met when the lawyer accepts an
interest in the client's business or other nonmonetary property as payment of
all or part of a fee. In addition, the Rule does not apply to standard
commercial transactions between the lawyer and the client for products or
services that the client generally markets to others, for example, banking or
brokerage services, medical services, products manufactured or distributed by
the client, and utilities' services. In such transactions, the lawyer has no
advantage in dealing with the client, and the restrictions in paragraph (a) are
unnecessary and impracticable.
[2]
Paragraph (a)(1) requires that the transaction itself be fair to the client and
that its essential terms be communicated to the client, in writing, in a manner
that can be reasonably understood. Paragraph (a)(2) requires that the client
also be advised, in writing, of the desirability of seeking the advice of
independent legal counsel. It also requires that the client be given a
reasonable opportunity to obtain such advice. Paragraph (a)(3) requires that
the lawyer obtain the client's informed consent, in a writing signed by the
client, both to the essential terms of the transaction and to the lawyer's
role. When necessary, the lawyer should discuss both the material risks of the
proposed transaction, including any risk presented by the lawyer's involvement,
and the existence of reasonably available alternatives and should explain why
the advice of independent legal counsel is desirable. See Rule 1.0(f)
(definition of informed consent).
[3] The risk to a client is greatest when the
client expects the lawyer to represent the client in the transaction itself or
when the lawyer's financial interest otherwise poses a significant risk that
the lawyer's representation of the client will be materially limited by the
lawyer's financial interest in the transaction. Here the lawyer's role requires
that the lawyer must comply, not only with the requirements of paragraph (a),
but also with the requirements of Rule 1.7. Under that Rule, the lawyer must
disclose the risks associated with the lawyer's dual role as both legal adviser
and participant in the transaction, such as the risk that the lawyer will
structure the transaction or give legal advice in a way that favors the
lawyer's interests at the expense of the client. Moreover, the lawyer must
obtain the client's informed consent. In some cases, the lawyer's interest may
be such that Rule 1.7 will preclude the lawyer from seeking the client's
consent to the transaction.
[4] If
the client is independently represented in the transaction, paragraph (a)(2) of
this Rule is inapplicable, and the paragraph (a)(1) requirement for full
disclosure is satisfied either by a written disclosure by the lawyer involved
in the transaction or by the client's independent counsel. The fact that the
client was independently represented in the transaction is relevant in
determining whether the agreement was fair and reasonable to the client as
paragraph (a)(1) further requires.
Use of Information Related to Representation
[5] Use of information relating to
the representation to the disadvantage of the client violates the lawyer's duty
of loyalty. Paragraph (b) applies when the information is used to benefit
either the lawyer or a third person, such as another client or business
associate of the lawyer. For example, if a lawyer learns that a client intends
to purchase and develop several parcels of land, the lawyer may not use that
information to purchase one of the parcels in competition with the client or to
recommend that another client make such a purchase. The Rule does not prohibit
uses that do not disadvantage the client. For example, a lawyer who learns a
government agency's interpretation of trade legislation during the
representation of one client may properly use that information to benefit other
clients. Paragraph (b) prohibits disadvantageous use of client information
unless the client gives informed consent, except as permitted or required by
these Rules. See Rules 1.2(d), 1.6, 1.9(c), 3.3, 4.1(b), 8.1 and 8.3.
Gifts to Lawyers
[6] A lawyer may accept a gift from a client,
if the transaction meets general standards of fairness. For example, a simple
gift such as a present given at a holiday or as a token of appreciation is
permitted. If a client offers the lawyer a more substantial gift, paragraph (c)
does not prohibit the lawyer from accepting it, although such a gift may be
voidable by the client under the doctrine of undue influence, which treats
client gifts as presumptively fraudulent. In any event, due to concerns about
overreaching and imposition on clients, a lawyer may not suggest that a
substantial gift be made to the lawyer or for the lawyer's benefit, except
where the lawyer is related to the client as set forth in paragraph
(c).
[7] If effectuation of a
substantial gift requires preparing a legal instrument such as a will or
conveyance, the client should have the detached advice that another lawyer can
provide. The sole exception to this Rule is where the client is a relative of
the donee.
[8] This Rule does not
prohibit a lawyer from seeking to have the lawyer or a partner or associate of
the lawyer named as executor of the client's estate or to another potentially
lucrative fiduciary position. Nevertheless, such appointments will be subject
to the general conflict of interest provision in Rule 1.7 when there is a
significant risk that the lawyer's interest in obtaining the appointment will
materially limit the lawyer's independent professional judgment in advising the
client concerning the choice of an executor or other fiduciary. In obtaining
the client's informed consent to the conflict, the lawyer should advise the
client concerning the nature and extent of the lawyer's financial interest in
the appointment, as well as the availability of alternative candidates for the
position.
Literary Rights
[9] An agreement by which a lawyer acquires
literary or media rights concerning the conduct of the representation creates a
conflict between the interests of the client and the personal interests of the
lawyer. Measures suitable in the representation of the client may detract from
the publication value of an account of the representation. Paragraph (d) does
not prohibit a lawyer representing a client in a transaction concerning
literary property from agreeing that the lawyer's fee shall consist of a share
in ownership in the property, if the arrangement conforms to Rule 1.5 and
paragraphs (a) and (i).
Financial Assistance
[10] Lawyers may not subsidize lawsuits or
administrative proceedings brought on behalf of their clients, including making
or guaranteeing loans to their clients for living expenses, because to do so
would encourage clients to pursue lawsuits that might not otherwise be brought
and because such assistance gives lawyers too great a financial stake in the
litigation. These dangers do not warrant a prohibition on a lawyer lending a
client court costs and litigation expenses, including the expenses of medical
examination and the costs of obtaining and presenting evidence, because these
advances are virtually indistinguishable from contingent fees and help ensure
access to the courts. Similarly, an exception allowing lawyers representing
indigent clients to pay court costs and litigation expenses regardless of
whether these funds will be repaid is warranted.
Person Paying for a Lawyer's Services
[11] Lawyers are frequently asked to
represent a client under circumstances in which a third person will compensate
the lawyer, in whole or in part. The third person might be a relative or
friend, an indemnitor (such as a liability insurance company) or a co-client
(such as a corporation sued along with one or more of its employees). Because
third-party payers frequently have interests that differ from those of the
client, including interests in minimizing the amount spent on the
representation and in learning how the representation is progressing, lawyers
are prohibited from accepting or continuing such representations unless the
lawyer determines that there will be no interference with the lawyer's
independent professional judgment and there is informed consent from the
client. See also Rule 5.4(c) (prohibiting interference with a lawyer's
professional judgment by one who recommends, employs or pays the lawyer to
render legal services for another).
[12] Sometimes, it will be sufficient for the
lawyer to obtain the client's informed consent regarding the fact of the
payment and the identity of the third-party payer. If, however, the fee
arrangement creates a conflict of interest for the lawyer, then the lawyer must
comply with Rule. 1.7. The lawyer must also conform to the requirements of Rule
1.6 concerning confidentiality. Under Rule 1.7(a), a conflict of interest
exists if there is significant risk that the lawyer's representation of the
client will be materially limited by the lawyer's own interest in the fee
arrangement or by the lawyer's responsibilities to the third-party payer (for
example, when the third-party payer is a co-client). Under Rule 1.7(b), the
lawyer may accept or continue the representation with the informed consent of
each affected client, unless the conflict is nonconsentable under that
paragraph. Under Rule 1.7(b), the informed consent must be confirmed in
writing.
Aggregate Settlements
[13] Differences in willingness to make or
accept an offer of settlement are among the risks of common representation of
multiple clients by a single lawyer. Under Rule 1.7, this is one of the risks
that should be discussed before undertaking the representation, as part of the
process of obtaining the clients' informed consent. In addition, Rule 1.2(a)
protects each client's right to have the final say in deciding whether to
accept or reject an offer of settlement and in deciding whether to enter a
guilty or nolo contendere plea in a criminal case. The rule stated in this
paragraph is a corollary of both these Rules and provides that, before any
settlement offer or plea bargain is made or accepted on behalf of multiple
clients, the lawyer must inform each of them about all the material terms of
the settlement, including what the other clients will receive or pay if the
settlement or plea offer is accepted. See also Rule 1.0(f) (definition of
informed consent). Lawyers representing a class of plaintiffs or defendants, or
those proceeding derivatively, may not have a full client-lawyer relationship
with each member of the class; nevertheless, such lawyers must comply with
applicable rules regulating notification of class members and other procedural
requirements designed to ensure adequate protection of the entire class.
Limiting Liability and Settling Malpractice Claims
[14] Agreements prospectively
limiting a lawyer's liability for malpractice are prohibited unless the client
is independently represented in making the agreement because they are likely to
undermine competent and diligent representation. Also, many clients are unable
to evaluate the desirability of making such an agreement before a dispute has
arisen, particularly if they are then represented by the lawyer seeking the
agreement. This paragraph does not, however, prohibit a lawyer from entering
into an agreement with the client to arbitrate legal malpractice claims,
provided such agreements are enforceable and the client is fully informed of
the scope and effect of the agreement. Nor does this paragraph limit the
ability of lawyers to practice in the form of a limited-liability entity, where
permitted by law, provided that each lawyer remains personally liable to the
client for his or her own conduct and the firm complies with any conditions
required by law, such as provisions requiring client notification or
maintenance of adequate liability insurance. Nor does it prohibit an agreement
in accordance with Rule 1.2 that defines the scope of the representation,
although a definition of scope that makes the obligations of representation
illusory will amount to an attempt to limit liability.
[15] Agreements settling a claim or a
potential claim for malpractice are not prohibited by this Rule. Nevertheless,
in view of the danger that a lawyer will take unfair advantage of an
unrepresented client or former client, the lawyer must first advise such a
person in writing of the appropriateness of independent representation in
connection with such a settlement. In addition, the lawyer must give the client
or former client a reasonable opportunity to find and consult independent
counsel.
Acquiring Proprietary Interest in Litigation
[16] Paragraph (i) states the
traditional general rule that lawyers are prohibited from acquiring a
proprietary interest in litigation. Like paragraph (e), the general rule has
its basis in common law champerty and maintenance and is designed to avoid
giving the lawyer too great an interest in the representation. In addition,
when the lawyer acquires an ownership interest in the subject of the
representation, it will be more difficult for a client to discharge the lawyer
if the client so desires. The Rule permits a lawyer to acquire a lien to secure
the lawyer's fee or expenses provided the requirements of Rule 1.7 are
satisfied. Specifically, the lawyer must reasonably believe that the
representation will not be adversely affected after taking into account the
possibility that the acquisition of a proprietary interest in the client's
cause of action or any res involved therein may cloud the lawyer's judgment and
impair the lawyer's ability to function as an advocate. The lawyer must also
disclose the risks involved prior to obtaining the client's consent. Prior to
initiating a foreclosure on property subject to a lien securing a legal fee,
the lawyer must notify the client of the right to require the lawyer to
participate in the mandatory fee dispute resolution program. See Rule
1.5(f).
[17] The Rule is subject to
specific exceptions developed in decisional law and continued in these Rules.
The exception for certain advances of the costs of litigation is set forth in
paragraph (e). In addition, paragraph (i) sets forth exceptions for liens
authorized by law to secure the lawyer's fees or expenses and contracts for
reasonable contingent fees. The law of each jurisdiction determines which liens
are authorized by law. These may include liens granted by statute, liens
originating in common law and liens acquired by contract with the client. When
a lawyer acquires by contract a security interest in property other than that
recovered through the lawyer's efforts in the litigation, such an acquisition
is a business or financial transaction with a client and is governed by the
requirements of paragraph (a). Contracts for contingent fees in civil cases are
governed by Rule 1.5.
Imputation of Prohibitions
[18] Under paragraph (j), a prohibition on
conduct by an individual lawyer in paragraphs (a) through (i) also applies to
all lawyers associated in a firm with the personally prohibited lawyer. For
example, one lawyer in a firm may not enter into a business transaction with a
client of another member of the firm without complying with paragraph (a), even
if the first lawyer is not personally involved in the representation of the
client.