skip navigation

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Some portions of the collection may already be severely out of date, so please be cautious in your use of this material.

New Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct


ABA Comments

New Hampshire Comment - Rule 1.8

[1] The language of New Hampshire Rule 1.8(a) subsections (1) through (3) differs from the comparable model ABA rule only for purposes of brevity, not for purposes of changing the meaning of scope of the rule. As is the case in Rule 1.7, the lawyer entering into business transaction with a client, or knowingly acquiring pecuniary interest adverse to a client must first effectively communicate the risks and consequences to their client at the outset of the transaction. Subsection (b) of Rule 1.8 differs from the ABA model rule by virtue of the additional language “and with knowledge of the consequences.” As in the case of Rules 1.7 and 1.8(a), a lawyer must effectively communicate the risks and consequences before obtaining the consent of that client for the use of information, whether confidential or not, to the disadvantage of that client. See generally, Goldman v. Kane, 3 Mass.App.Ct. 336, 329 N.E.2d 770 (1975); Israel v. Sommer, 292 Mass. 113, 197 N.E. 442 (1935). Where the provisions of Rule 1.6(b)(1) and (2) conflict with the provisions of Rule 1.8(b) the provisions of Rule 1.6 shall govern.