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Some portions of the collection may already be severely out of date, so please be cautious in your use of this material.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
I. Client-lawyer relationship
The Entity as the Client
 An organizational client is a legal entity, but it cannot act except through its officers, directors, employees, shareholders, and other constituents. “Other constituents” as used in this rule and comment means the positions equivalent to officers, directors, employees, and shareholders held by persons acting for organizational clients that are not corporations. The duties defined in this rule apply equally to unincorporated associations.
 When one of the constituents of an organizational client communicates with the organization’s lawyer in that person’s organizational capacity, the lawyer must keep the communication confidential as to persons other than the organizational client as required by Rule 1.6. Thus, by way of example, if an organizational client requests its lawyer to investigate allegations of wrongdoing, interviews made in the course of that investigation between the lawyer and the client’s employees or other constituents are covered by Rule 1.6. This does not mean, however, that constituents of an organizational client are the clients of the lawyer. The lawyer may disclose to the organizational client a communication related to the representation that a constituent made to the lawyer, but the lawyer may not disclose such information to others except for disclosures explicitly or impliedly authorized by the organizational client in order to carry out the representation or as otherwise permitted by Rule 1.6.
 Division (b) explains when a lawyer may have an obligation to report “up the ladder” within an organization as part of discharging the lawyer’s duty to communicate with the organizational client. When constituents of the organization make decisions for it, their decisions ordinarily must be accepted by the lawyer even if their utility or prudence is doubtful. Decisions concerning policy and operations, including ones entailing serious risk, are not as such in the lawyer’s province. Division (b) makes clear, however, that when the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the organization is likely to be substantially injured by action of an officer or other constituent that violates a legal obligation to the organization or is a violation of law that might be imputed to the organization, the lawyer must proceed as is reasonably necessary in the best interest of the organization. As defined in Rule 1.0(g), knowledge can be inferred from circumstances, and a lawyer cannot ignore the obvious.
 In determining whether “up-the-ladder” reporting is required under division (b), the lawyer should give due consideration to the seriousness of the violation and its consequences, the responsibility in the organization and the apparent motivation of the person involved, the policies of the organization concerning such matters, and any other relevant considerations. In some circumstances, referral to a higher authority may be unnecessary; for example, if the circumstances involve a constituent’s innocent misunderstanding of the law and subsequent acceptance of the lawyer’s advice. In contrast, if a constituent persists in conduct contrary to the lawyer’s advice, or if the matter is of sufficient seriousness and importance or urgency to the organization, whether or not the lawyer has not communicated with the constituent, it will be necessary for the lawyer to take steps to have the matter reviewed by a higher authority in the organization. Any measures taken should, to the extent practicable, minimize the risk of revealing information relating to the representation to persons outside the organization. Even in circumstances where a lawyer is not obligated by Rule 1.13 to proceed, a lawyer may bring to the attention of an organizational client, including its highest authority, matters that the lawyer reasonably believes to be of sufficient importance to warrant doing so in the best interests of the organization.
 Division (b) also makes clear that, if warranted by the circumstances, a lawyer must refer a matter to the highest authority that can act on behalf of the organization under applicable law. The organization’s highest authority to whom a matter may be referred ordinarily will be the board of directors or similar governing body. However, applicable law may prescribe that under certain conditions the highest authority reposes elsewhere, for example, in the independent directors of a corporation.
Relation to Other Rules
 Division (c) makes clear that a lawyer for an organization has the same discretion and obligation to reveal information relating to the representation to persons outside the client as any other lawyer, as provided in Rule 1.6(b) and (c) (which incorporates Rules 3.3 and 4.1 by reference). As stated in Comment  to Rule 1.6, where practicable, before revealing information, the lawyer should first seek to persuade the client to take suitable action to obviate the need for disclosure. Even where such consultation is not practicable, the lawyer should consider whether giving notice to a higher authority within the organization of the lawyer’s intent to disclose confidential information pursuant to Rule 1.6(b) or Rule 1.6(c) would advance or interfere with the purpose of the disclosure.
 The duty to “report up the ladder” defined in this rule also applies to lawyers for governmental organizations. Defining precisely the identity of the client and prescribing the resulting obligations of such lawyers may be more difficult in the government context and is a matter beyond the scope of these rules. See Scope . In addition, the duties of lawyers employed by the government or lawyers in military service may be defined by statute and regulation. Under this rule, if the lawyer’s client is one branch of government, the public, or the government as a whole, the lawyer must consider what is in the best interests of that client when the lawyer becomes aware of an agent’s wrongful action or inaction, as defined by the rule, and must disclose the information to an appropriate official. See Scope.
Clarifying the Lawyer’s Role
 There are times when the organization’s interest may be or become adverse to those of one or more of its constituents. In such circumstances the lawyer should advise any constituent, whose interest the lawyer finds adverse to that of the organization, of the conflict or potential conflict of interest, that the lawyer cannot represent such constituent, and that such person may wish to obtain independent representation. Care must be taken to ensure that the individual understands that, when there is such adversity of interest, the lawyer for the organization cannot provide legal representation for that constituent individual, and that discussions between the lawyer for the organization and the individual may not be privileged.
 Whether such a warning should be given by the lawyer for the organization to any constituent individual may turn on the facts of each case.
 Division (e) recognizes that a lawyer for an organization may also represent one or more constituents of an organization, if the conditions of Rule 1.7 are satisfied.
 Under generally prevailing law, the shareholders or members of a corporation may bring suit to compel the directors to perform their legal obligations in the supervision of the organization. Members of unincorporated associations have essentially the same right. Such an action may be brought nominally by the organization, but usually is, in fact, a legal controversy over management of the organization.
 The question can arise whether counsel for the organization may defend such an action. The proposition that the organization is the lawyer’s client does not alone resolve the issue. Most derivative actions are a normal incident of an organization’s affairs, to be defended by the organization’s lawyer like any other suit. However, if the claim involves serious charges of wrongdoing by those in control of the organization, a conflict may arise between the lawyer’s duty to the organization and the lawyer’s relationship with the board. In those circumstances, Rule 1.7 governs who should represent the directors and the organization.
Comparison to former Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility
Ohio has no Disciplinary Rule directly addressing the responsibility of a lawyer for an organization. However, Rule 1.13 draws substantially upon EC 5-19.
Comparison to ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct
Rule 1.13 more closely resembles the substance of Model Rule 1.13 as it existed prior to its last revision by the ABA in August 2003. Specifically, Rule 1.13 identifies to whom a lawyer for an organization owes loyalty and requires that a lawyer for an organization effectively communicate to the organization concerning matters of material risk to the organization of which the lawyer becomes aware. Rule 1.13 does not include a provision of Model Rule 1.13 that imposes a “whistle-blowing” requirement upon lawyers for organizations.
Rule 1.13 alters Model Rule 1.13 in the following respects:
Rule 1.13(a) is augmented to define the term “constituent” and to add the principle of EC 5-19 to the black letter rule.
The rule and comment have been edited for greater simplicity and clarity. Among the changes are reconciliation of the apparent contradiction in Model Rule 1.13(b) between the direction to “proceed as reasonably necessary,” which leaves the approach to the lawyer’s discretion, and the mandatory direction to report to higher authority.
The special “reporting out” requirement of Model Rule 1.13(c) has been stricken. Instead, a lawyer for an organization has the same “reporting out” discretion or duty as other lawyers have under Rule 1.6(b) and (c). Model Rule 1.13(d) and Comments  and  are unnecessary in light of its revision of Rule 1.13(b).
Model Rule 1.13(e) is deleted. That provision requires that a lawyer who has quit or been discharged because of “reporting up” or “reporting out” make sure that the governing board knows of the lawyer’s withdrawal or termination. Such a provision seems out of place in a code of ethics.
The comments to Rule 1.13 are revised to reflect changes to the rule.