(b)
Notwithstanding section (a) above, in representing a client who has a dispute
with a government agency or body, a lawyer may communicate about the subject of
the representation with the elected officials who have authority over such
government agency or body even if the lawyer knows that the government agency
or body is represented by another lawyer in the matter, but such communications
may only occur under the following circumstances:
(1) in writing, if a copy of the writing is
promptly delivered to opposing counsel;
(3) in the course of
official proceedings.
Comment
[1] This
Rule contributes to the proper functioning of the legal system by protecting a
person who has chosen to be represented by a lawyer in a matter against
possible overreaching by other lawyers who are participating in the matter,
interference by those lawyers with the client-lawyer relationship and the
uncounselled disclosure of information relating to the
representation.
[2] This Rule does
not prohibit a lawyer who does not have a client relative to a particular
matter from consulting with a person or entity who, though represented
concerning the matter, seeks another opinion as to his or her legal situation.
A lawyer from whom such an opinion is sought should, but is not required to,
inform the first lawyer of his or her participation and advice.
[3] This Rule does not prohibit communication
with a represented person, or an employee or agent of such a person, concerning
matters outside the representation. For example, the existence of a controversy
between a government agency and a private party, or between two organizations,
does not prohibit a lawyer for either from communicating with nonlawyer
representatives of the other regarding a separate matter. Also, a lawyer having
independent justification or legal authorization for communicating with a
represented person is permitted to do so.
[4] A lawyer may not make a communication
prohibited by this Rule through the acts of another. See Rule
8.4(a). However, parties to a matter may communicate directly with each other,
and a lawyer is not prohibited from advising a client or, in the case of a
government lawyer, investigatory personnel, concerning a communication that the
client or such investigatory personnel, is legally entitled to make. The Rule
is not intended to discourage good faith efforts by individual parties to
resolve their differences. Nor does the Rule prohibit a lawyer from encouraging
a client to communicate with the opposing party with a view toward the
resolution of the dispute.
[5]
Communications authorized by law may include communications by a lawyer on
behalf of a client who is exercising a constitutional or other legal right to
communicate with the government. When a government agency or body is
represented with regard to a particular matter, a lawyer may communicate with
the elected government officials who have authority over that agency under the
circumstances set forth in paragraph (b).
[6] Communications authorized by law may also
include investigative activities of lawyers representing governmental entities,
directly or through investigative agents, prior to the commencement of criminal
or civil enforcement proceedings. When communicating with the accused in a
criminal matter, a government lawyer must comply with this Rule in addition to
honoring the constitutional rights of the accused. The fact that a
communication does not violate a state or federal constitutional right is
insufficient to establish that the communication is permissible under this
Rule.
[7] A lawyer who is uncertain
whether a communication with a represented person is permissible may seek a
court order. A lawyer may also seek a court order in exceptional circumstances
to authorize a communication that would otherwise be prohibited by this Rule,
for example, where communication with a person represented by counsel is
necessary to avoid reasonably certain injury.
[8] This Rule applies to communications with
any person, whether or not a party to a formal adjudicative proceeding,
contract or negotiation, who is represented by counsel concerning the matter to
which the communication relates. The Rule applies even though the represented
person initiates or consents to the communication. A lawyer must immediately
terminate communication with a person if, after commencing communication, the
lawyer learns that the person is one with whom communication is not permitted
by this Rule.
[9] In the case of a
represented organization, this Rule prohibits communications with a constituent
of the organization who supervises, directs or consults with the organization's
lawyer concerning the matter or has authority to obligate the organization with
respect to the matter or whose act or omission in connection with the matter
may be imputed to the organization for purposes of civil or criminal liability.
It also prohibits communications with any constituent of the organization,
regardless of position or level of authority, who is participating or
participated substantially in the legal representation of the organization in a
particular matter. Consent of the organization's lawyer is not required for
communication with a former constituent unless the former constituent
participated substantially in the legal representation of the organization in
the matter. If an employee or agent of the organization is represented in the
matter by his or her own counsel, the consent by that counsel to a
communication would be sufficient for purposes of this Rule. Compare Rule
3.4(f). In communicating with a current or former constituent of an
organization, a lawyer must not use methods of obtaining evidence that violate
the legal rights of the organization. See Rule 4.4, Comment
[2].
[10] The prohibition on
communications with a represented person only applies in circumstances where
the lawyer knows that the person is in fact represented in the matter to be
discussed. This means that the lawyer has actual knowledge of the fact of the
representation; but such actual knowledge may be inferred from the
circumstances. See Rule 1.0(g). Thus, the lawyer cannot evade
the requirement of obtaining the consent of counsel by closing eyes to the
obvious.
[11] In the event the
person with whom the lawyer communicates is not known to be represented by
counsel in the matter, the lawyer's communications are subject to Rule
4.3.