skip navigation
search

End-of-life notice: American Legal Ethics Library

As of March 1, 2013, the Legal Information Institute is no longer maintaining the information in the American Legal Ethics Library. It is no longer possible for us to maintain it at a level of completeness and accuracy given its staffing needs. It is very possible that we will revive it at a future time. At this point, it is in need of a complete technological renovation and reworking of the "correspondent firm" model which successfully sustained it for many years.

Many people have contributed time and effort to the project over the years, and we would like to thank them. In particular, Roger Cramton and Peter Martin not only conceived ALEL but gave much of their own labor to it. We are also grateful to Brad Wendel for his editorial contributions, to Brian Toohey and all at Jones Day for their efforts, and to all of our correspondents and contributors. Thank you.

We regret any inconvenience.

Some portions of the collection may already be severely out of date, so please be cautious in your use of this material.


Connecticut Legal Ethics

VI. PUBLIC SERVICE

6.1   Rule 6.1 Pro Bono Public Service

6.1:100   Comparative Analysis of Connecticut Rule

‰ Primary Connecticut References: CT Rule 6.1
‰ Background References: ABA Model Rule 6.1, Other Jurisdictions
‰ Commentary:
‰ Connecticut Commentary:

6.1:101      Model Rule Comparison

Both Conn. Rule 6.1 and the Model Rule 6.1, although noting that a lawyer has a professional responsibility to provide pro bono services, do not require the same. Model Rule 6.1 is more detailed than Conn. Rule 6.1, which simply states that lawyers should render pro bono services and outlines different manners in which this goal can be achieved (i.e, by providing legal services free or at a reduced fee to persons of limited means or charitable groups, etc.). The Model Rule, on the other hand, provides more detail, including, a goal of how much of a lawyerΑs time should be devoted to pro bono work (50 hours per year) and enumerating additional categories of organizations that should be the recipient of pro bono services (i.e., charitable, religious, civic, community, governmental and educational organizations in matters in furtherance of their organizational purpose). Both Rules suggest that one method of contributing to the public interest is to financially support organizations that provide legal services to persons of limited means.

6.1:102      Model Code Comparison

There is no direct counterpart to this Rule in the Model Code.

6.1:200   Lawyer's Moral Obligation to Engage in Public Interest Legal Service

‰ Primary Connecticut References: CT Rule 6.1
‰ Background References: ABA Model Rule 6.1, Other Jurisdictions
‰ Commentary:
‰ Connecticut Commentary:

In Bank of Hartford, Inc. v. Bultron, No. SP-H-929665684, 1992 WL 436242 (Conn. Super. 1992), the court discussed the obligation that Rule 6.1 imposed upon the legal profession to provide services pro bon publico. In Bultron, the court noted that a legal services organization which employed lawyers to represent low income clients is in the spirit of Rule 6.1.

6.2   Rule 6.2 Accepting Appointments

6.2:100   Comparative Analysis of Connecticut Rule

‰ Primary Connecticut References: CT Rule 6.2
‰ Background References: ABA Model Rule 6.2, Other Jurisdictions
‰ Commentary:
‰ Connecticut Commentary:

6.2:101      Model Rule Comparison

Model Rule 6.2 and Conn. Rule 6.2 are identical. Both Rules mandate a lawyer shall not seek to avoid appointment by a tribunal for representation of a person. A lawyer may decline appointment for good cause, including representation likely to result (1) in violation of the Rules, (2) unreasonable financial burden to the lawyer, or (3) an impaired client-lawyer relationship or representation because the clients case or the client is so repugnant to the lawyer.

6.2:102      Model Code Comparison

There was no counterpart to this Rule in the Model Code.

6.2:200   Duty to Accept Court Appointments Except for Good Cause

‰ Primary Connecticut References: CT Rule 6.2
‰ Background References: ABA Model Rule 6.2, Other Jurisdictions
‰ Commentary:
‰ Connecticut Commentary:

There appear to be no Connecticut court cases or ethics opinions on this subject.

6.3   Rule 6.3 Membership in Legal Services Organization

6.3:100   Comparative Analysis of Connecticut Rule

‰ Primary Connecticut References: CT Rule 6.3
‰ Background References: ABA Model Rule 6.3, Other Jurisdictions
‰ Commentary:
‰ Connecticut Commentary:

6.3:101      Model Rule Comparison

Conn. Rule 6.3 is identical to the Model Rule 6.3. The Rules permit a lawyer to serve as a "director, officer, or member of a legal services organization," notwithstanding the fact that the organization serves persons having interests adverse to a client of the lawyer. There are two caveats to this rule. First, a lawyer may not knowingly participate in a decision or action of the organization, if such a decision would be in conflict with his obligations under Rule 1.7. Second, a lawyer may not knowingly participate in a decision or action of the organization where the decision Λcould have a material adverse effect on the representation of a client of the organization whose interests are adverse to the client of the lawyer.Σ

6.3:102      Model Code Comparison

There is no counterpart to this Rule in the Model Code.

6.3:200   Conflicts of Interest of Lawyers Participating in a Legal Services Organization

‰ Primary Connecticut References: CT Rule 6.3
‰ Background References: ABA Model Rule 6.3, Other Jurisdictions
‰ Commentary:
‰ Connecticut Commentary:

There appear to be no pertinent Connecticut cases or ethics opinions on this subject.

6.4   Rule 6.4 Law Reform Activities Affecting Client Interests

6.4:100   Comparative Analysis of Connecticut Rule

‰ Primary Connecticut References: CT Rule 6.4
‰ Background References: ABA Model Rule 6.4, Other Jurisdictions
‰ Commentary:
‰ Connecticut Commentary:

6.4:101      Model Rule Comparison

Model Rule 6.4 and Conn. Rule 6.4 are identical. Both Rules permit a lawyer to serve as a Λdirector, officer or member of a legal services organization involved in reform of the law or administration,Σ irregardless of whether such reform may affect the interests of a client of the lawyer. Both Rules require that if a lawyer knows that the interest of his client may be Λmaterially benefitted by a decision in which the lawyer participates,Σ he must disclose this fact to the organization. In this situation, the lawyer does not need to reveal the identity of the affected client.

6.4:102      Model Code Comparison

There is no counterpart to Rule 6.4 in the Model Code.

6.4:200   Conflicts of Interest of Lawyers Participating in Law Reform Organizations

‰ Primary Connecticut References: CT Rule 6.4
‰ Background References: ABA Model Rule 6.4, Other Jurisdictions
‰ Commentary:
‰ Connecticut Commentary:

There appear to be no pertinent Connecticut cases or ethics opinions on this subject.

6.5   Rule 6.5 Nonprofit and Court-Annexed Limited Legal Service Programs

6.5:100   Comparative Analysis of Connecticut Rule

‰ Primary Connecticut References:
‰ Background References: ABA Model Rule 6.5, Other Jurisdictions
‰ Commentary:

MR 6.5 was added in February 2002. The Reporter's explanation of the change reads as follows:

Rule 6.5 is a new Rule in response to the Commission's concern that a strict application of the conflict-of-interest rules may be deterring lawyers from serving as volunteers in programs in which clients are provided short-term limited legal services under the auspices of a nonprofit organization or a court-annexed program. The paradigm is the legal-advice hotline or pro se clinic, the purpose of which is to provide short-term limited legal assistance to persons of limited means who otherwise would go unrepresented.

6.5:101      Model Rule Comparison

Connecticut has not adopted the new model rule.

6.5:200   Scope of Rule

‰ Primary Connecticut References:
‰ Background References: ABA Model Rule 6.5, Other Jurisdictions
‰ Commentary:
‰ Connecticut Commentary:

Connecticut has not adopted the new model rule.

6.5:300   Special Conflict of Interest Rule

‰ Primary Connecticut References:
‰ Background References: ABA Model Rule 6.5, Other Jurisdictions
‰ Commentary:
‰ Connecticut Commentary:

Connecticut has not adopted the new model rule.