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Some portions of the collection may already be severely out of date, so please be cautious in your use of this material.


Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct

Comment - 1.4

[1] Reasonable communication between the lawyer and the client is necessary for the client to participate effectively in the representation.

Communicating with Client

[2] If these rules require that a particular decision about the representation be made by the client, division (a)(1) requires that the lawyer promptly consult with and secure the client’s consent prior to taking action unless prior discussions with the client have resolved what action the client wants the lawyer to take. For example, a lawyer who receives from opposing counsel an offer of settlement in a civil controversy or a proffered plea bargain in a criminal case must promptly inform the client of its substance unless the client has previously indicated that the proposal will be acceptable or unacceptable or has authorized the lawyer to accept or to reject the offer. See Rule 1.2(a).

[3] Division (a)(2) requires the lawyer to reasonably consult with the client about the means to be used to accomplish the client’s objectives. In some situations, depending on both the importance of the action under consideration and the feasibility of consulting with the client, this duty will require consultation prior to taking action. In other circumstances, such as during a trial when an immediate decision must be made, the exigency of the situation may require the lawyer to act without prior consultation. In such cases the lawyer must nonetheless act reasonably to inform the client of actions the lawyer has taken on the client’s behalf. Additionally, division (a)(3) requires that the lawyer keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter, such as significant developments affecting the timing or the substance of the representation and the fees and costs incurred to date.

[4] A lawyer’s regular communication with clients will minimize the occasions on which a client will need to request information concerning the representation. When a client makes a reasonable request for information, however, division (a)(4) requires prompt compliance with the request, or if a prompt response is not feasible, that the lawyer, or a member of the lawyer’s staff, acknowledge receipt of the request and advise the client when a response may be expected. Client telephone calls should be promptly returned or acknowledged.

Explaining Matters

[5] The client should have sufficient information to participate intelligently in decisions concerning the objectives of the representation and the means by which they are to be pursued, to the extent the client is willing and able to do so. Adequacy of communication depends in part on the kind of advice or assistance that is involved. For example, when there is time to explain a proposal made in a negotiation, the lawyer should review all important provisions with the client before proceeding to an agreement. In litigation a lawyer should explain the general strategy and prospects of success and ordinarily should consult the client on tactics that are likely to result in significant expense or to injure or coerce others. On the other hand, a lawyer ordinarily will not be expected to describe trial or negotiation strategy in detail. The guiding principle is that the lawyer should fulfill reasonable client expectations for information consistent with the duty to act in the client’s best interests, and the client’s overall requirements as to the character of representation.

[6] Ordinarily, the information to be provided is that appropriate for a client who is a comprehending and responsible adult. However, fully informing the client according to this standard may be impracticable, for example, where the client is a child or suffers from diminished capacity. See Rule 1.14. When the client is an organization or group, it is often impossible or inappropriate to inform every one of its members about its legal affairs; ordinarily, the lawyer should address communications to the appropriate officials of the organization. See Rule 1.13. Where many routine matters are involved, a system of limited or occasional reporting may be arranged with the client.

Withholding Information

[7] In some circumstances, a lawyer may be justified in delaying transmission of information when the client would be likely to react imprudently to an immediate communication. Thus, a lawyer might withhold a psychiatric diagnosis of a client when the examining psychiatrist indicates that disclosure would harm the client. A lawyer may not withhold information to serve the lawyer’s own interest or convenience or the interests or convenience of another person. Rules or court orders governing litigation may provide that information supplied to a lawyer may not be disclosed to the client. Rule 3.4(c) directs compliance with such rules or orders.

Professional Liability Insurance

[8] Although it is in the best interest of the lawyer and the client that the lawyer maintain professional liability insurance or another form of adequate financial responsibility, it is not required in any circumstance other than when the lawyer practices as part of a legal professional association, corporation, legal clinic, limited liability company, or registered partnership.

[9] The client may not be aware that maintaining professional liability insurance is not mandatory and may well assume that the practice of law requires that some minimum financial responsibility be carried in the event of malpractice. Therefore, a lawyer who does not maintain certain minimum professional liability insurance shall promptly inform a prospective client or client.

Comparison to former Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility

Rule 1.4(a) states the minimum required communication between attorney and client. This is a change from the aspirational nature of EC 7-8. Rule 1.4(a)(1) corresponds to several sentences in EC 7-8 and EC 9-2. Rules 1.4(a)(2) and (3) correspond to several sentences in EC 7-8. Rule 1.4(a)(4) explicitly states what is implied in EC 7-8 and EC 9-2. Rule 1.4(a)(5) states a new requirement that does not correspond to any DR or EC.

Rule 1.4(b) corresponds to several sentences in EC 7-8 and EC 9-2.

Rule 1.4(c) adopts the existing language in DR 1-104.

Comparison to ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct

Rules 1.4(a)(1) through (a)(5) are the same as the Model Rule provisions except for division (a)(4), which is altered to require compliance with client requests “as soon as practicable” rather than “promptly.”

Rule 1.4(b) is the same as the Model Rule provision.

Rule 1.4(c) does not have a counterpart in the Model Rules. The provision mirrors DR 1-104, adopted effective July 1, 2001. DR 1-104 provides the public with additional information and protection from attorneys who do not carry malpractice insurance. Ohio is one of only a few states that have adopted a similar provision, and this requirement is retained in the rules.