伦理意见258
规则4的适用.2(a)致作为当事人的澳博app
澳博app作为某一事件的当事人并正在进行诉讼的澳博app 箴se cannot communicate directly with another party who is known to be represented by counsel 在这件事上 without first obtaining consent from the other party’s lawyer.
适用的规则
- 规则4.2(澳博app与对方沟通)
调查
初学的, 私人医生, requests an opinion concerning whether an attorney who is a party in a matter and who is proceeding 箴se 可以，根据规则4.2, communicate directly with another represented party in the same matter without first obtaining the consent of the other party’s lawyer.
规则4.2(a), “不接触”规则, 规定,, “[d]在代表客户的过程中, 一个澳博app shall not communicate or cause another to communicate about the subject of the representation with a party known to be represented by another lawyer 在这件事上, unless the lawyer has the prior consent of the lawyer representing such other party or is authorized by law to do so.然而，对规则4的评论[1].第2条清楚地指出“方 对一个问题可以直接相互沟通”(强调加了).
这个调查, 因此, 提出了一个新颖的问题，如何, 如果有的话, the freedom of 方 to communicate directly with each other without the permission or presence of counsel is altered or nullified by the fact that one of the 方 to the matter is, 自己, 一个澳博app.1
讨论
为了这次调查的目的, 委员会假定(1)预期的通信是直接与一方当事人进行的3 在这件事上, not a non-party employee or other non-party individual; (2) the dispute is a “matter” for purposes of 规则4.2(a); (3) the other party is represented by counsel; (4) the communication is about the “subject of the representation;” and (5) the direct communication is not otherwise “authorized by law.”
委员会认识到，无论是《美国澳博app协会职业行为示范规则》还是《澳博app协会职业行为示范规则》.C. 《澳博app下载网》直接对 箴se 表示问题.3 这个差距并没有结束我们的调查, 然而, 它也不会为选择自行诉讼的澳博app当事人创造职业道德真空.
委员会考虑了规则4背后的社会利益和目的.第2条及其评注，并已阅读规则4.2及其在所有职业行为规则背景下的评论.4 根据这4条原则和规则4的语言.2, we conclude that 一个澳博app proceeding 箴se in a matter must not communicate or cause another to communicate about the subject of the matter with a party known to be represented by another lawyer in that matter, 但当事人澳博app事先征得对方澳博app的同意的除外.
为了避免荒谬的结果, 然而, 委员会将另一方的情况排除在本意见的范围之外, 如果不是澳博app, 通常不会咨询澳博app或聘请澳博app代表他. 例如, 一个澳博app-consumer whose suit has been damaged by the dry cleaners should be free to address the problem directly with the manager, 而不是为干洗店联系澳博app. 类似的, 一个澳博app-neighbor may deal directly with a neighbor about a noisy pet or a tree that fell on the lawyer’s property, 不管邻居是否请了澳博app. Or 一个澳博app-citizen may write to the chief executive of a corporation protesting its planned theme park. It would be unreasonable to suggest in these types of situations that 一个澳博app-party cannot deal directly with the other person or entity. 然而, 当争议已经成熟到一个人通常会聘请澳博app的地步时, 澳博app一方必须按照规则4的规定对待自己.2.
规则4.2的核心是担心澳博app通常处于更好的地位, 通过教育和培训,5 to overwhelm a lay party and exploit his lack of legal knowledge in the course of communicating directly with the lay party. 法院 and this Committee have noted that the Rule is intended to protect against the lawyer who might coax a statement or settlement or otherwise take advantage of the unsuspecting and momentarily uncounseled lay person.6 因此, courts have noted the “difficulty the uncounseled layperson has in marshalling the information and foresight required to conduct negotiations about complex legal issues with 一个澳博app representing [an adverse party].”7/p>
法院也遵守了规则4.2有助于防止无意中泄露特权信息8 并“维护了法律体系的正常运作”9 通过保护澳博app与客户关系的完整性. These societal concerns and interests have no less validity when the lawyer positioned to do the coaxing is 一个澳博app-party proceeding 箴se.
对规则4的注释[1].第2条允许直接的、双方之间的通信，这并不构成规则4的例外.2. The comment merely reflects the American jurisprudential tradition that 方 generally are free to communicate directly with each other. This tradition is based on the belief that 方 have a right to settle their disputes without the involvement or consent of their lawyers.
但是，当事人的这一权利并不是绝对的. 一方当事人不能通过“胁迫”与另一方当事人达成和解, 骚扰, 或者专横的行为.”10 It is precisely this limitation on traditionally allowable interparty communications that takes precedence over the commentary to 规则4.当事人一方为澳博app的.
一个澳博app, 就像一个外行, 是否有无条件的权利为自己辩护, 即使, 正如一句古老的谚语所说, 这样她就得到了一个傻瓜做客户. 但是，与外行党不同的是 箴se lawyer brings her professional skills and legal knowledge with her whenever she deals with her lay adversary. 的lawyer-party, 无论她是以“澳博app”还是“当事人”的身份行事, 仍然保持着相对于对手的不公平优势. 因此，我们得出结论，澳博app必须遵守规则4的要求.(a)当她代表客户时，该客户是澳博app本人或另一方.
调查没有. 92-6-19
1995年9月20日通过
1. 本意见仅针对澳博app一方自行诉讼的情况. 我们不处理澳博app一方由澳博app代理的情况.
2. 这样假设, 委员会注意到，“当事方”一词并不限于诉讼中的正式当事方. 规则4.评论[4]. 参见规则4.2(c), 哪一个, 就本条而言, 将“party”定义为“任何人”, 包括一个政党组织的雇员, who has the authority to bind a party organization as to the representation to 哪一个 the communication relates.“我们还注意到第四条规则.2(d) excludes from the Rule’s scope communications by 一个澳博app with government officials who can redress a client’s grievances.
3. 事实上，《澳博app》似乎体现了两个假设——澳博app(1)代表(i).e.作为(2)第三方(1)的澳博app.e.(她本人以外的客户). Some courts have specifically held that certain disciplinary rules are inapplicable to the situation where 一个澳博app is representing 自己. 劳森v. 内华达电力公司., 739 F. 增刊. 23, 24 (D.D.C. 1990) (disciplinary rule requiring 一个澳博app to withdraw from trial if she is called as a witness does not require disqualification of lawyer who is proceeding 箴se). 参见O 'Neil v. 卑尔根，公元前452年.2d 337, 344 (D.C. 1982); Koger v. 韦伯，公元455年.Y.S.2d 935, 937 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1982); Downey, Fools and Their Ethics: The Professional Responsibility of Pro Se Attorneys, 34 B.C. L. 牧师. 529 (1993) (advocating the adoption of a new ABA Model Rule preserving the lawyer’s right to self-representation but urging the lawyer to retain outside counsel if her self-representation would violate the ethical standards normally applicable to the conduct of 一个澳博app representing another person).
4. 根据规则，澳博app被告诫不得骚扰对手. 见规则1.16 (一个澳博app should withdraw if the representation will result in a violation of the 职业行为准则); 3.1 (一个澳博app shall not bring or defend action except on a non-frivolous basis); 3.2 (一个澳博app should not delay a case solely to harass or maliciously injure another); 3.4 (一个澳博app shall deal fairly with opposing 方 and counsel in pretrial and trial matters); 3.5 (一个澳博app shall respect the impartiality and decorum of the tribunal); 4.2 (一个澳博app shall not talk to 方 represented by counsel about the subject of the representation).
5. 参见Valassis v. Samelson, 143f.R.D. 118, 120 (E.D. 密歇根州. 1992); Brown v. St. 约瑟夫县，北纬148年.R.D. 246, 249 (N.D. 印第安纳州. 1993); Curley v. 坎伯兰农场公司., 134 F.R.D. 77, 82 (N.D.J. 1991); University Patents, Inc. v. 克利格曼，737 F. 增刊. 325, 327 (E.D. Pa. 1990); Papanicolaou v. 纽约大通曼哈顿银行.A., 720 F. 增刊. 1080, 1084 (S.D.N.Y. 1989); Frey v. 卫生与公众服务部., 106 F.R.D. 32, 34 (E.D.N.Y. 1985); 美国诉. Galanis, 685 F. 增刊. 901, 902 (S.D.N.Y. 1988); Kurlatzik, The Prohibition on Communication with an Adverse Party, 51 Conn. B.J. 136, 145-46 (1977).
6. 参见美国诉. 巴彻勒，484楼. 增刊. 812, 813 (E.D. Pa. 1980); Sherrod v. 家具Ctr., 769 F. 增刊. 1021, 1022 (W.D. 田纳西州. 1991); Hanntz v. Shiley公司., 766 F. 增刊. 258, 265 (D.N.J. 1991); Polycast科技公司. v. 二氯萘酯公司., 129 F.R.D. 621, 625 (S.D.N.Y. 1990); 赖特v. 团体健康医院., 691 P.2d 564, 567(华盛顿州. 1984). 参见D.C. 澳博app公会法律道德通讯. Op. 80 (1979); ABA Comm. 论职业道德与委屈. 108 (1934); Frey v. 卫生与公共服务部副部长., 106 F.R.D. 在东经34度.D.N.Y. 1985); Leubsdorf, 与其他澳博app的客户沟通:澳博app的否决权与客户的利益, 127 U. Pa. L. 牧师. 683 (1979).
7. 美国诉. 巴彻勒，484楼. 增刊. at 813. 我们的意见并不取决于外行在一件事上的老练程度. 这样的主观分析, 我们相信, would create unnecessary confusion and uncertainty as to the propriety of lawyer-party conduct in future cases.
8. Polycast科技公司. v. 二氯萘酯公司., 129 F.R.D. at 625.
9. 赖特v. 团体健康医院., 691 P.2d at 567; Carter v. 卡玛拉斯(公元430年.2d 1058, 1059 (R.I. 1981).
10. 参见Lewis v. S.S. 鲍恩，534 F.2d 1115, 1122 (3d Cir. 1976).
