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Some portions of the collection may already be severely out of date, so please be cautious in your use of this material.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 - 1.7

General Principles

[1] The principles of loyalty and independent judgment are fundamental to the attorney-client relationship and underlie the conflict of interest provisions of these rules. Neither the lawyer’s personal interest, the interests of other clients, nor the desires of third persons should be permitted to dilute the lawyer’s loyalty to the client. All potential conflicts of interest involving a new or current client must be analyzed under this rule. In addition, a lawyer must consider whether any of the specific rules in Rule 1.8, regarding certain conflicts of interest involving current clients, applies. For former clients, see Rule 1.9; for conflicts involving those who have consulted a lawyer about representation but did not retain that lawyer, see Rule 1.18. [analogous to Model Rule Comment 1]

[2] In order to analyze and resolve a conflict of interest problem under this rule, a lawyer must: (1) clearly identify the client or clients; (2) determine whether a conflict of interest exists; (3) decide whether the representation is barred by either criteria of division (c); (4) evaluate, under division (b)(1), whether the lawyer can competently and diligently represent all clients affected by the conflict of interest; and (5) if representation is otherwise permissible, consult with the clients affected by the conflict and obtain the informed consent of each of them, confirmed in writing. [analogous to Model Rule Comment 2]

[3] To determine whether a conflict of interest would be created by accepting or continuing a representation, a lawyer should adopt reasonable procedures, appropriate for the size and type of firm and practice, for collecting and reviewing information about the persons and issues in all matters handled by the lawyer. See also Comment to Rule 5.1. Ignorance caused by a failure to institute or follow such procedures will not excuse a lawyer’s violation of this rule. [derived from Model Rule Comment 3]

[4] A lawyer must decline a new representation that would create a conflict of interest, unless representation is permitted under division (b). [derived from Model Rule Comment 3]

[5] If unforeseeable developments, such as changes in corporate and other organizational affiliations or the addition or realignment of parties in litigation, create a conflict of interest during a representation, the lawyer must withdraw from representation unless continued representation is permissible under divisions (b)(1) and (c) and the lawyer obtains informed consent, confirmed in writing, of each affected client under the conditions of division (b)(2). See Rule 1.16. [analogous to a portion of Model Rule Comment 4]

[6] Just as conflicts can emerge in the course of a representation, the nature of a known conflict of interest can change in the course of a representation. For example, the proposed joint representation of a driver and her passenger to sue a person believed to have caused a traffic accident may initially present only a material limitation conflict, as to which the proposed clients may give informed consent. However, if the lawyer’s investigation suggests that the driver may be at fault, the interests of the driver and the passenger are then directly adverse, and the joint representation cannot be continued. A lawyer must be alert to the possibility that newly acquired information requires reevaluating of a conflict of interest, and taking different steps to resolve it. [derived from Model Rule Comment 5]

[7] When a lawyer withdraws from representation in order to avoid a conflict, the lawyer must seek court approval where necessary and take steps to minimize harm to the clients. See Rule 1.16. The lawyer must also continue to protect the confidences of the client from whose representation the lawyer has withdrawn. See Rule 1.9(c). [analogous to a portion of Model Rule Comment 5]

[8] When a conflict arises from a lawyer’s representation of more than one client, whether the lawyer must withdraw from representing all affected clients or may continue to represent one or more of them depends upon whether: (1) the lawyer can both satisfy the duties owed to the former client and adequately represent the remaining client or clients, given the lawyer’s duties to the former client (see Rule 1.9); and (2) any necessary client consent is obtained. [analogous to a portion of Model Rule Comment 4]

Identifying the Client

[9] In large part, principles of substantive law outside these rules determine whether a client-lawyer relationship exists or is continuing. See Scope [17]. These rules, including Rules 1.2, 1.8(f)(2), 1.13, and 6.5, must also be considered.

Identifying Conflicts of Interest: Directly Adverse Representation

[10] The concurrent representation of clients whose interests are directly adverse always creates a conflict of interest. A directly adverse conflict can occur in a litigation or transactional setting. [derived from Model Rule Comment 6]

[11] In litigation. The representation of one client is directly adverse to another in litigation when one of the lawyer’s clients is asserting a claim against another client of the lawyer. A directly adverse conflict also may arise when effective representation of a client who is a party in a lawsuit requires a lawyer to cross-examine another client, represented in a different matter, who appears as a witness in the suit. A lawyer may not represent, in the same proceeding, clients who are directly adverse in that proceeding. See Rule 1.7(c)(2). Further, absent consent, a lawyer may not act as an advocate in one proceeding against a person the lawyer represents in some other matter, even when the matters are wholly unrelated. [derived from Model Rule Comment 6]

[12] Class-action conflicts. When a lawyer represents or seeks to represent a class of plaintiffs or defendants in a class-action lawsuit, unnamed members of the class are ordinarily not considered to be clients of the lawyer for purposes of applying division (a)(1) of this rule. Thus, the lawyer does not typically need to get the consent of an unnamed class member before representing a client suing the person in an unrelated matter. Similarly, a lawyer seeking to represent an opponent in a class action does not typically need the consent of an unnamed member of the class whom the lawyer represents in an unrelated matter. [analogous to Model Rule Comment 25]

[13] In transactional and counseling practice. The representation of one client can be directly adverse to another in a transactional matter. For example, a buyer and a seller or a borrower and a lender are directly adverse with respect to the negotiation of the terms of the sale or loan. [Stark County Bar Assn v. Ergazos (1982), 2 Ohio St. 3d 59; Columbus Bar v. Ewing (1992), 63 Ohio St. 3d 377]. If a lawyer is asked to represent the seller of a business in negotiations with a buyer whom the lawyer represents in another, unrelated matter, the lawyer cannot undertake the new representation without the informed, written consent of each client. [analogous to Model Rule Comment 7]

Identifying Conflicts of Interest: Material Limitation Conflicts

[14] Even where clients are not directly adverse, a conflict of interest exists if there is a substantial risk that a lawyer’s ability to consider, recommend, or carry out an appropriate course of action for the client will be materially limited as a result of the lawyer’s other responsibilities or interests. The mere possibility of subsequent harm does not, itself, require disclosure and consent. The critical questions are: (1) whether a difference in interests between the client and lawyer or between two clients exists or is likely to arise; and (2) if it does, whether this difference in interests will materially interfere with the lawyer’s independent professional judgment in considering alternatives or foreclose courses of action that reasonably should be pursued on behalf of any affected client. [analogous to Model Rule Comment 8]

Lawyer’s Responsibility to Current Clients-Same Matter

[15] In litigation. A “material limitation” conflict exists when a lawyer represents co-plaintiffs or co-defendants in litigation and there is a substantial discrepancy in the clients’ testimony, incompatible positions in relation to another party, potential cross-claims, or substantially different possibilities of settlement of the claims or liabilities in question. Such conflicts can arise in criminal cases as well as civil. The potential for conflict of interest in representing multiple defendants in a criminal matter is so grave that ordinarily a lawyer should decline to represent more than one co-defendant. On the other hand, common representation of persons having similar interests in civil litigation is proper if the requirements of division (b) are met. [analogous to Model Rule Comment 23]

[16] In transactional practice. In transactional and counseling practice, the potential also exists for material limitation conflicts in representing multiple clients in regard to one matter. Depending upon the circumstances, a material limitation conflict of interest may be present. Relevant factors in determining whether there is a material limitation conflict include the nature of the clients’ respective interests in the matter, the relative duration and intimacy of the lawyer’s relationship with each client involved, the functions being performed by the lawyer, the likelihood that disagreements will arise, and the likely prejudice to each client from the conflict. These factors and others will also be relevant to the lawyer’s analysis of whether the lawyer can competently and diligently represent all clients in the matter, and whether the lawyer can make the disclosures to each client necessary to secure each client’s informed consent. See Comments 24-30. [analogous to a portion of Model Rule Comment 26]

Lawyer’s Responsibility to Current Client-Different Matters

[17] A material limitation conflict between the interests of current clients can sometimes arise when the lawyer represents each client in different matters. Simultaneous representation, in unrelated matters, of clients whose business or personal interests are only generally adverse, such as competing enterprises, does not present a material limitation conflict. Furthermore, a lawyer may ordinarily take inconsistent legal positions at different times on behalf of different clients. However, a material limitation conflict of interest exists, for example, if there is a substantial risk that a lawyer’s action on behalf of one client in one case will materially limit the lawyer’s effectiveness in concurrently representing another client in a different case. For example, there is a material limitation conflict if a decision for which the lawyer must advocate on behalf of one client in one case will create a precedent likely to seriously weaken the position taken on behalf of another client in another case. Factors relevant in determining whether there is a material limitation of which the clients must be advised and for which consent must be obtained include: (1) where the cases are pending; (2) whether the issue is substantive or procedural; (3) the temporal relationship between the matters; (4) the significance of the issue to the immediate and long-term interests of the clients involved; and (5) the clients’ reasonable expectations in retaining the lawyer. [derived from Model Rule Comments 6 and 24]

Lawyer’s Responsibilities to Former Clients and Other Third Persons

[18] A lawyer’s duties of loyalty and independence may be materially limited by responsibilities to former clients under Rule 1.9 or by the lawyer’s responsibilities to other persons, such as family members or persons to whom the lawyer, in the capacity of a trustee, executor, or corporate director, owes fiduciary duties. [Model Rule Comment 9]

[19] If a lawyer for a corporation or other organization serves as a member of its board of directors, the dual roles may present a “material limitation” conflict. For example, a lawyer’s ability to assure the corporate client that its communications with counsel are privileged may be compromised if the lawyer is also a board member. Alternatively, in order to participate fully as a board member, a lawyer may have to decline to advise or represent the corporation in a matter. Before starting to serve as a director of an organization, a lawyer must take the steps specified in division (b), considering whether the lawyer can adequately represent the organization if the lawyer serves as a director and, if so, reviewing the implications of the dual role with the board and obtaining its consent. Even with consent to the lawyer’s acceptance of a dual role, if there is a material risk in a given situation that the dual role will compromise the lawyer’s independent judgment or ability to consider, recommend, or carry out an appropriate course of action, the lawyer should abstain from participating as a director or withdraw as the corporation’s lawyer as to that matter. [analogous to Model Rule Comment 35]

Personal Interest Conflicts

[20] Types of personal interest. The lawyer’s own interests should not be permitted to have an adverse effect on representation of a client. For example, if the probity of a lawyer’s own conduct in a transaction is in serious question, the lawyer may have difficulty or be unable to give a client detached advice in regard to the same manner. Similarly, when a lawyer has discussions concerning possible employment with an opponent of the lawyer’s client, or with a law firm representing the opponent, such discussions could materially limit the lawyer’s representation of the client. A lawyer should not allow related business interests to affect representation, for example, by referring clients to an enterprise in which the lawyer has an undisclosed financial interest. See Rule 1.8 for specific rules pertaining to certain personal interest conflicts, including business transactions with clients. See also Rule 1.10 (personal interest conflicts under Rule 1.7 ordinarily are not imputed to other lawyers in a law firm). [Model Rule Comment 10]

[21] Related lawyers. When lawyers who are closely related by blood or marriage represent different clients in the same matter or in substantially related matters, there may be a substantial risk that client confidences will be revealed and that the lawyer’s family relationship will interfere with both loyalty and independent professional judgment. As a result, each client is entitled to know of the existence and implications of the relationship between the lawyers before the lawyer agrees to undertake the representation. Thus, a lawyer related to another lawyer, e.g., as parent, child, sibling, or spouse, ordinarily may not represent a client in a matter where the related lawyer represents another party, unless each client gives informed, written consent. The disqualification arising from a close family relationship is personal and ordinarily is not imputed to members of firms with whom the lawyers are associated. See Rule 1.10. [Model Rule Comment 11]

[22] Sexual activity with clients. A lawyer is prohibited from engaging in sexual activity with a current client unless the sexual relationship predates the formation of the client-lawyer relationship. See Rule 1.8(j). [Model Rule Comment 12]

Interest of Person Paying for a Lawyer’s Service

[23] A lawyer may be paid from a source other than the client, including a co-client, if the client is informed of that fact and consents and the arrangement does not compromise the lawyer’s duty of loyalty or independent judgment to the client. See Rule 1.8(f), and the special notice requirement for clients of insurance defense counsel in Rule 1.8(f)(4). If acceptance of the payment from any other source presents a substantial risk that the lawyer’s representation of the client will be materially limited by the lawyer’s own interest in accommodating the person paying the lawyer’s fee or by the lawyer’s responsibilities to a payer who is also a co-client, then the lawyer must comply with the requirements of division (b) before accepting the representation. [analogous to Model Rule Comment 13]

Adequacy of Representation Burdened by a Conflict

[24] After a lawyer determines that accepting or continuing a representation entails a conflict of interest, the lawyer must assess whether the lawyer can provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client consistent with the lawyer’s duties of loyalty and independent judgment. When the lawyer is representing more than one client, the question of adequacy of representation must be resolved as to each client. [derived from Model Rule Comment 15]

Special Considerations in Common Representation

[25] In considering whether to represent multiple clients in the same matter, a lawyer should be mindful that if the common representation fails because the potentially adverse interests cannot be reconciled, the result can be additional cost, embarrassment, and recrimination. Ordinarily, the lawyer will be forced to withdraw from representing all of the clients if the common representation fails. In some situations, the risk of failure is so great that multiple representation is plainly impossible. For example, a lawyer cannot undertake common representation of clients where contentious litigation or negotiations between them are imminent or contemplated. Moreover, because the lawyer is required to be impartial between commonly represented clients, representation of multiple clients is improper when it is unlikely that impartiality can be maintained. Generally, if the relationship between the parties is antagonistic, the possibility that the clients’ interests can be adequately served by common representation is low. Other relevant factors are whether the lawyer subsequently will represent both parties on a continuing basis and whether the situation involves creating or terminating a relationship between the parties. [Model Rule Comment 29]

[26] Particularly important factors in determining the appropriateness of common representation are the effect on client-lawyer confidentiality and the attorney-client privilege. With regard to the attorney-client privilege, the prevailing rule is that, as between commonly represented clients, the privilege does not attach. Hence, it must be assumed that if litigation does later occur between the clients, the privilege will not protect communications made on the subject of the joint representation, while it is in effect, and the clients should be so advised. [Model Rule Comment 30]

[27] As to the duty of confidentiality, continued common representation will almost certainly be inadequate if one client asks the lawyer not to disclose to the other client information relevant to the common representation. This is so because the lawyer has an equal duty of loyalty to each client, and each client has the right to be informed of anything bearing on the representation that might affect the client’s interests and the right to expect that the lawyer will use that information to that client’s benefit. See Rule 1.4. The lawyer should, at the outset of the common representation and as part of the process of obtaining each client’s informed consent, advise each client that information will be shared and that the lawyer will have to withdraw if one client decides that some matter material to the representation should be kept from the other. In limited circumstances, it may be appropriate for the lawyer to proceed with the representation when the clients have agreed, after being properly informed, that the lawyer will keep certain information confidential. For example, the lawyer may reasonably conclude that failure to disclose one client’s trade secrets to another client will not adversely affect representation on behalf of a joint venture between the clients and agree to keep that information confidential with the informed consent of both clients. [Model Rule Comment 31]

[28] Any limitations on the scope of the representation made necessary as a result of the common representation must be fully explained to the clients at the outset of the representation and communicated to the client, preferably in writing. See Rule 1.2(c). Subject to such limitations, each client in a common representation has the right to loyal and diligent representation and to the protection of Rule 1.9 concerning the obligations to a former client. Each client also has the right to discharge the lawyer as stated in Rule 1.16. [analogous to Model Rule Comments 32 and 33]

Informed Consent

[29] Informed consent requires that each affected client be aware of the relevant circumstances and of the material and reasonably foreseeable ways that a conflict could have adverse effects on the interests of that client. See Rule 1.0(f). The information required depends on the nature of the conflict and the nature of the risks involved. When representation of multiple clients in a single matter is undertaken, the information must include the advantages and risks of the common representation, including possible effects on loyalty, confidentiality, and the attorney-client privilege. [Model Rule Comment 18]

[30] Under some circumstances it may be impossible to make the disclosure necessary to obtain consent. For example, when the lawyer represents different clients in related matters and one of the clients refuses to consent to the disclosure necessary to permit the other client to make an informed decision, the lawyer cannot properly ask the latter to consent. [analogous to Model Rule Comment 19]

Consent Confirmed in Writing

[31] Division (b)(2) requires the lawyer to obtain the informed consent of the client, confirmed in writing. Such a writing may consist of a document signed by the client or one that the lawyer promptly records and transmits to the client following an oral consent. See Rule 1.0(b) and (p) (writing includes electronic transmission). If it is not feasible to obtain or transmit the writing at the time the client gives informed consent, then the lawyer must obtain or transmit it within a reasonable time thereafter. See Rule 1.0(b). Written confirmation of consent does not supplant the need, in most cases, for the lawyer to talk with the client: (1) to explain the risks and advantages, if any, of representation burdened with a conflict of interest, as well as reasonably available alternatives; and (2) to afford the client a reasonable opportunity to consider the risks and alternatives and to raise questions and concerns. The writing is required in order to impress upon clients the seriousness of the decision the client is being asked to make and to avoid disputes or ambiguities that might later occur in the absence of written consent. [Model Rule Comment 20]

Revoking Consent

[32] A client who has given consent to a conflict may revoke the consent and, like any other client, may terminate the lawyer’s representation at any time. Whether revoking consent to the client’s own representation precludes the lawyer from continuing to represent other clients depends on the circumstances, including the nature of the conflict, whether the client revoked consent because of a material change in circumstances, the reasonable expectations of the other clients and whether material detriment to the other clients or the lawyer would result. [Model Rule Comment 21]

Consent to Future Conflict

[33] Whether a lawyer may properly request a client to waive conflicts that might arise in the future is subject to the test of division (b). The effectiveness of such waivers is generally determined by the extent to which the client reasonably understands the material risks that the waiver entails. The more comprehensive the explanation of representations that might arise and the actual and reasonably foreseeable adverse consequences of those representations, the greater the likelihood that the client will have the requisite understanding. Thus, if the client agrees to consent to a particular type of conflict with which the client is already familiar, then the consent ordinarily will be effective with regard to that type of conflict. If the consent is general and open-ended, then the consent ordinarily will be ineffective, except when it is reasonably likely that the client will have understood the material risks involved. Such exceptional circumstances might be presented if the client is an experienced user of the legal services involved and is reasonably informed regarding the risk that a conflict may arise, particularly if the client is independently represented by other counsel in giving consent and the consent is limited to future conflicts unrelated to the subject of the representation. In any case, advance consent cannot be effective if the circumstances that materialize in the future are such as would make a waiver prohibited under division (b). [Model Rule Comment 22]

Prohibited Representations

[34] Often, clients may be asked to consent to representation notwithstanding a conflict. However, as indicated in divisions (c)(1) and (2) some conflicts cannot be waived as a matter of law, and the lawyer involved cannot properly ask for such agreement or provide representation on the basis of the client’s consent. [analogous to Model Rule Comment 14]

[35] Before requesting a conflict waiver from one or more clients in regard to a matter, a lawyer must determine whether either division (c)(1) or (2) bars the representation, regardless of waiver.

[36] As provided by division (c)(1), certain conflicts cannot be waived as a matter of law. For example, the Supreme Court of Ohio has ruled that regardless of client consent, a lawyer may not represent both husband and wife in the preparation of a separation agreement. [Columbus Bar Assn v. Grelle (1968), 14 Ohio St.2d 208] Similarly, federal criminal statutes prohibit certain representations by a former government lawyer, despite the informed consent of the former client. [analogous to Model Rule Comment 16]

[37] Division (c)(2) bars representation, in the same proceeding, of clients who are directly adverse because of the institutional interest in vigorous development of each client’s position. A lawyer may not represent both a claimant and the party against whom the claim is asserted whether in proceedings before a tribunal or in negotiations or mediation of a claim pending before a tribunal. [derived from Model Rule Comment 17]

[38] Division (c)(2) does not address all nonconsentable conflicts. Some conflicts are nonconsentable because a lawyer cannot represent both clients competently and diligently or both clients cannot give informed consent. For example, a lawyer may not represent multiple parties to a negotiation whose interests are fundamentally antagonistic, regardless of their consent. [derived from Model Rule Comment 28]

Comparison to former Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility

Rule 1.7 replaces DR 5-101(A)(1) and 5-105(A), (B), and (C). Some of the Ethical Considerations in Canon 5 have direct parallels in the comments to Rule 1.7, although no effort has been made to conform the text of any comment to the analogous Ethical Consideration.

No change in the substance of the referenced Ohio rules on conflicts and conflict waivers is intended, except the requirement that conflict waivers be confirmed in writing. Specifically, the current “obviousness” test for the representation of multiple clients and the tests of Rule 1.7(b) and (c) are the same. In both instances, a lawyer must consider whether the lawyer can adequately represent all affected clients, whether there are countervailing public policy considerations against the representation, and whether the lawyer must obtain informed consent. Unlike DR 5-101(A)(1), Rule 1.7 makes clear that this same analysis must be applied when a lawyer’s personal interests create a conflict with a client’s interests.

Client consent is not required for every conceivable or remote conflict, as stated in Comment [14]. On the other hand, practicing lawyers recognize that many situations require the lawyer to evaluate the adequacy of representation and request client consent, not only those in which an adverse effect on the lawyer’s judgment is patent or inevitable, as DR 5-105(B) can be interpreted to state. Rule 1.7 will more effectively guide lawyers in practice than DR 5-105(B) and anticipates that a lawyer will be subject to discipline for assuming or continuing a representation burdened by a conflict of interest only when a lawyer has failed to recognize a clear present or probable conflict and has not obtained informed consent, or where the conflict is not consentable. Nonconsentable conflicts include: (1) those where a lawyer could not possibly provide competent and diligent representation to the affected clients; (2) those where a lawyer cannot, because of conflicting duties, fully inform one or more affected clients of the implications of representation burdened by a conflict; and (3) representations prohibited under Rule 1.7(c).

Comparison to ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct

Model Rule 1.7 is revised for clarity. Division (a) states the two broad circumstances in which a conflict of interest exists between the interests of two clients or the interest of a lawyer and a client. Division (b) prohibits a lawyer from accepting or continuing a representation that creates a conflict of interest unless certain conditions are satisfied. Division (c) defines certain conflicts of interest that are not waivable as a matter of public policy, even if clients consent. Lawyers are reminded that a conflict of interest may exist at the time that a representation begins or may arise later. The term “concurrent conflict,” which was introduced in the most recent ABA revisions of Model Rule 1.7, is stricken as unnecessary. Division (a)(2) uses phrases borrowed from Model Rule 1.7, Comment [8] and DR 5-101 to explain the nature of a “material limitation” conflict and substitutes the defined term “substantial” in place of “significant.”

Rule 1.7 differs in substance from the Ohio Code in its requirement that a client’s consent to a conflict be confirmed in writing. Although the rule requires only the client’s consent, and not the lawyer’s disclosure to be confirmed in writing, the writing requirement will remind the lawyer to communicate to the client the information necessary to make an informed decision about this material aspect of the representation.

Division (c) has no parallel in the Code or Ohio law, except to the extent that it would be “obvious,” under DR 5-105(C), that a lawyer could not engage in a representation prohibited by law or represent two parties in the same proceeding whose interests are directly adverse. The principles of division (c), which are drawn from Model Rule 1.7(b)(2) and (3), are unexceptional, and their inclusion in the rule is appropriate. Note, however, that unlike Rule 1.7(c)(2), corresponding Model Rule 1.7(b)(3) was drafted to permit a lawyer to represent two parties with directly opposing interests in a mediation, although simultaneous representation of such parties in a related proceeding is prohibited. (See Model Rule 1.7, Comment [17]). Such a distinction is unacceptable.

The comments to Model Rule 1.7 are rewritten for clarity and are reordered to help practitioners find relevant comments. Portions of Comments [28] and [34] have been deleted because they appear to state conclusions of law for which we have found no precedent in Ohio law or advisory opinions of the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline.