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Some portions of the collection may already be severely out of date, so please be cautious in your use of this material.
District of Columbia Rules of Professional Conduct
Comment - Rule 1.0
"Fraud" or "fraudulent"
 When used in these Rules, the terms "fraud" or "fraudulent" refer to conduct that is characterized as such under the substantive or procedural law of the applicable jurisdiction and has a purpose to deceive. This does not include merely negligent misrepresentation or negligent failure to apprise another of relevant information. For purposes of these Rules, it is not necessary that anyone has suffered damages or relied on the misrepresentation or failure to inform.
 Many of the Rules of Professional Conduct require the lawyer to obtain the informed
consent of a client or other person (e.g., a former client or, under certain circumstances, a
prospective client) before accepting or continuing representation or pursuing a course of
conduct. See, e.g., Rules 1.2(c), 1.6(e) and 1.7(c)(1). The communication necessary to obtain
such consent will vary according to the Rule involved and the circumstances giving rise to the
need to obtain informed consent. The lawyer must make reasonable efforts to ensure that the
client or other person possesses information reasonably adequate to make an informed decision.
Ordinarily, this will require communication that includes a disclosure of the facts and
circumstances giving rise to the situation, any explanation reasonably necessary to inform the
client or other person of the material advantages and disadvantages of the proposed course of
conduct and a discussion of the client's or other person's options and alternatives. In some
circumstances it may be appropriate for a lawyer to advise a client or other person to seek the
advice of other counsel. A lawyer need not inform a client or other person of facts or
implications already known to the client or other person; nevertheless, a lawyer who does not
personally inform the client or other person assumes the risk that the client or other person is
inadequately informed and the consent is invalid. In determining whether the information and
explanation provided are reasonably adequate, relevant factors include whether the client or
other person is experienced in legal matters generally and in making decisions of the type
involved, and whether the client or other person is independently represented by other counsel in
giving the consent. Normally, such persons need less information and explanation than others,
and generally a client or other person who is independently represented by other counsel in
giving the consent should be assumed to have given informed consent. In all circumstances, the
client's consent must be not only informed but also uncoerced by the lawyer or by any other
person acting on the lawyer's behalf.
 Obtaining informed consent will usually require an affirmative response by the client or other person. In general, a lawyer may not assume consent from a client's or other person's silence. Consent may be inferred, however, from the conduct of a client or other person who has reasonably adequate information about the matter. A number of Rules require that a person's consent be in writing. See Rules 1.8(a)(3) and 1.8(g). For a definition of "writing," see Rule 1.0(o).
 This definition applies to situations where screening of a personally disqualified
lawyer is permitted to remove imputation of a conflict of interest under Rules 1.11, 1.12 or 1.18.
 The purpose of screening is to assure the affected parties that confidential information known by the personally disqualified lawyer remains protected. The personally disqualified lawyer should acknowledge the obligation not to communicate with any of the other lawyers in the firm with respect to the matter. Similarly, other lawyers in the firm who are working on the matter should be informed that the screening is in place and that they may not communicate with the personally disqualified lawyer with respect to the matter. Additional screening measures that are appropriate for the particular matter will depend upon the circumstances. To implement, reinforce and remind all affected lawyers of the presence of the screening, it may be appropriate for the firm to undertake such procedures as a written undertaking by the screened lawyer to avoid any communication with other firm personnel and any contact with any firm files or other materials relating to the matter, written notice and instructions to all other firm personnel forbidding any communication with the screened lawyer relating to the matter, denial of access by the screened lawyer to firm files or other materials relating to the matter and periodic reminders of the screen to the screened lawyer and all other firm personnel. For a further explanation of screening, see D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Committee Opinion 279.
 In order to be effective, screening measures must be implemented as soon as practical after a lawyer or law firm knows or reasonably should know that there is a need for screening.