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Some portions of the collection may already be severely out of date, so please be cautious in your use of this material.


Maryland Lawyer's Rules of Professional Conduct

Comment - Rule 4.2

[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 lawyer-client relationship, and the uncounseled disclosure of information relating to the representation.

[2] This Rule does not prohibit communication with a person, or an employee or agent of the person, concerning matters outside the representation. For example, the existence of a controversy between two organizations does not prohibit a lawyer for either from communicating with nonlawyer representatives of the other regarding a separate matter. Also, parties to a matter may communicate directly with each other and a lawyer having independent justification or legal authorities for communicating with a represented person is permitted to do so.

[3] Communications authorized by law inclue communications in the course of investigative activities of lawyers representing governmental entities, directly or through investigative agents, before the commencement of criminal or civil enforecement proceedings if there is applicable judicial precedent holding either that the activity is permissible or that the Rule does not apply to the activity. The term "civil enforcement proceedings" includes administrative enforcement proceedings. Except to the extent applicable judicial precedent holds otherwide, a government lawyer who communicates with a represented criminal defendent must comply with this Rule.

[4] A lawyer who is uncertain whether a communication with a represented person is permissible may seek a court order in exceptional circumstances. For example, when a represented criminal defendent expresses a desire to speak to the prosecutor without the knowledge of the defendent's lawyer, the prosecutor may seek a court order appointing substitute counsel to represent the defendent with respect to communication.

[5] 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.

[6] If an agent or employee of a represented person that is an organization is represented in the matter by his or her own counsel, the consent by that counsel to a communication will be sufficient for purposes of this Rule. Compare Rule 3.4(f). In communicating with a current agent or employee of an organization, a lawyer must not seek to obtain information that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is subject to an evidentiary or other privilege of the organization. Regarding communications with former employees, see Rule 4.4(b).

[7] The prohibition on communications with a represented person applies only if the lawyer has actual knowledge that the person in fact is represented in the matter to be discussed. Actual knowledge may be inferred from the circumstances. The lawyer cannot evade the requirement of obtaining the consent of counsel by ignoring the obvious.

[8] Rule 4.3 applies to a communication by a lawyer with a person not known to be represented by counsel.

[9] Paragraph (c) recognizes that special considerations come into play when a lawyer is seeking to redress grievances involving the government. Subject to certain condition, it permits communications with those in government having the authority to redress the grievances (but not with any other government personnel) without prior consent of the lawyer representing the government in the matter. Paragraph (c) does not, however, permit a lawyer to bypass counsel representing the government on every issue that may arise in the course of disputes with the government. Rather, the paragraph provides lawyers with access to decision makers in government with respect to genuine grievances, such as to present the view that the government's basic policy position with repsect to a dispute is faulty or that government personnel are conducting themselves improperly with respect to aspects of the dispute. It does not provide direct access on routine disputes, such as ordinary discovery disputes or extensions of time.

Model Rules Comparison

This Rule substantially retains Maryland language as it existed prior to the Ethics 2000 Amendments to the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct except for dividing Rule 4.2(b) into Rule 4.2(b) and (c) with no change in wording.

Committee Note

The use of the word “person” for “party” in paragraph (a) is not intended to enlarge or restrict the extent of permissible law enforcement activities of government lawyers under applicable judicial precedent.