WPC -  m;q5)7@qU< ZsSZ"s/R fGa,#SskZa_*ԚafĂ%;B0:떁Vdgi=v9܈Criu᝻ IШZQѾgwlF`$$::L=2<[+9?QS> q}j@`n;uCbh ԃgA %Uv8.0r[!W};-y0i?i XZX+TY*iq1E~Uܼp)AvP0{#U~=~ x-~/F7e"}Zdj.+듘YoZCSF ;Y!tbaAn'#7R'Xn> \N$GΛ??AВOԪ_}*##eG'q# UGN % 0# H U N$ U<r M 8 w 4  mM* 1.UN 0AbDUNR  b 1uM$( 0N0~MU>MMMPG8MMe M 72 0U(2 0Z/NE!G^ hPtU<@a&{ 0 0 0 0j 0J 0' 0 0 0C 0 0 0 0k 09 0! 0! 0" 0@Q# 0# 0e$ 06% 0& 0& 0' 0\( 0)U>))))))))) D5** BN*N*N*N*N*N*N* 0k*k*k*k*k*k*k*k* AS*E+ 0 , 0D,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, B7,HP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 60x@ Z6Times New Roman RegularX({$         TRY(3' LetterY3' Letter3' Letter3'8Avery 5266 Asst. File FolderTc:\Corel\Office7\Template\Wp7us.wpt(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular\  `$Times NewRoman .#8Xd#  R[W+~3|xU(EhCEKQW]cioAutoList21.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.(  Z 6Times New Roman Regular(Vm$0   Page (hH  Z 6Times New Roman Regular 3#37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) (O$www.cletn.com\  `&Times New Roman F8/XXdXXd8 =#Xd#      i)*+ (_2623  ..(3$ {!         TRY,3' LetterY,3' Letter 3' Letter 3' LetterT          ~+s  F8WXXdXXd8   (9 Z(Times New Roman  W8WXXdXXd8   c *G+M (_25   /%` ` hp x /23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *D+M (_24   ," hp x ,23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *A+M (_23  ` ) hp x )23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *>+M (_22   &hhp x &23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *;+M (_21   #p x #23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *8+M (_20  h  p x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *5+M (_19   pp x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  *2+M (_18    x 23  ..  5+ ` hp x 5  * (_1723  Ԁ*GM (_16   /%` ` hp x /23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *DM (_15   ," hp x ,23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *AM (_14  ` ) hp x )23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *>M (_13   &hhp x &23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *;M (_12   #p x #23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *8M (_11  h  p x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  *5M (_10   pp x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  (2M &_9    x 23  Ԁ  5+ ` hp x 5  ( &_823  (GM &_7   /%` ` hp x /23   5+ ` hp x 5  (DM &_6   ," hp x ,23   5+ ` hp x 5  (AM &_5  ` ) hp x )23   5+ ` hp x 5  (>M &_4   &hhp x &23   5+ ` hp x 5  (;M &_3   #p x #23   5+ ` hp x 5  (8M &_2  h  p x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  (5M &_1   pp x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  &2M $_    x 23   5+ ` hp x 5  \  `&Times New Roman[[[[)!dxdx d(_3$ H!        USUS.,  klbmYE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(_3$ H!        USUS.,  ($$   1  3+0 d d d {!         TRY,3' LetterX3' Letter 3' Letter3'T  _f @ g 2X XXX= XXdd=8 XXdd8!]0H     @  @ ExhibitB 2BX2X   f  g REVISEDf  g FINALREPORT  ofthe   TennesseeBarAssociation   CommitteefortheStudyof c  StandardsofProfessionalConduct   #2X X2B#2BX2X ԀRevisedCommitteeDraftof  ] ProposedTennesseeRulesofProfessionalConduct  #2X X2BO#2BX2X f  g f  g December3,2001#2X X2B #  Z" !] !8 XXdXXd8 !     G8 XXdXXd8B.` hp x (#XB  3c5      NOTE:ThisdraftoftheProposedTennesseeRulesofProfessionalConductincludes, k aftereachProposedRule,Comment,and_Definitional_ԀCross-References,asectionentitled T CommitteeNotes.Thissection,preparedonbehalfoftheCommittee,includesabrief =  comparisonoftheProposedRuletoexistingTennesseeethicsrules,abriefcomparisonofthe & v ProposedRuletothepertinentprovisionsoftheABAModelRulesofProfessionalConduct;f  g a  _ briefdescriptionofanychangesmadetotheProposedRuleandCommentf  g f  g afterf  g ԀtheCommittees  H PreliminaryDraftf  ,g f  g Ԁwasf  g ԀissuedbytheCommitteefordiscussionpurposesinNovember1997f  g ,yet  1  beforethePetitionwasfiledinOctober2000;andabriefdescriptionofcommentsreceivedby    theTennesseeSupremeCourtortheCommitteeafterthefilingoftheTBAPetitioninOctober   2000,aswellasanyresponseorchangestotheProposedRulemadebytheCommitteein   responsetosuchcommentsf  g .   {  0H G 08 XXdXXd8  08 XXdXXd8     .٦4<"TABLEOFCONTENTS    !!G(#Page     Vm  VmO0     PREAMBLE#""J(#. (#(##1VmOk݌ T Ќ  Vm  Vm0     SCOPE#""J(#.(#(##2Vm$݌ & v Ќ  Vm  Vm0     CHAPTER1.CLIENTLAWYERRELATIONSHIP#""J(#.0(#(##6  H    PROPOSEDRULE1.0       ` DEFINITIONS""J(#.;;6Vm݌   Ќ  Vm  Vm+0       f  g f  g PROPOSEDRULEf  g Ԁ1.1   f  g f  g  ` COMPETENCE#""J(#.(#(##9f  g Vm+G݌ n  Ќ  Vm  Vm0     f  g #X XX2X #f  g 2X XXX   PROPOSEDRULE1.2 h  @  ` SCOPEOFTHEREPRESENTATIONANDTHEALLOCATIONOF )y  ` AUTHORITYBETWEENTHELAWYERANDCLIENT#`"`"I(#.;(#(##14f  f  g Vm݌ b Ќ  Vm  Vm0       PROPOSEDRULE1.3 4  ` DILIGENCE#`"`"I(#. (#(##22Vm݌  Ќ  Vm  Vm0       PROPOSEDRULE1.4   ` COMMUNICATION#`"`"I(#...!(#(##24Vm݌  Ќ  Vm  Vm0       PROPOSEDRULE1.5 Z  ` FEES#`"`"I(#.2 2 (#(##27Vm݌ C Ќ  Vm  Vm0       PROPOSEDRULE1.6 e  ` CONFIDENTIALITY#`"`"I(#.ee#(#(##34Vm݌ N Ќ  Vm  Vm0       PROPOSEDRULE1.7 !    ` CONFLICTOFINTEREST:GENERALRULE#`"`"I(#.7(#(##44Vm݌ " ! Ќ  Vm  Vm0       PROPOSEDRULE1.8 $#  ` CONFLICTOFINTEREST:PROHIBITEDTRANSACTIONS#`"`"I(#.B(#(##53Vm݌ t% $ Ќ  Vm  Vm0       PROPOSEDRULE1.9 F'"&  ` CONFLICTOFINTEREST:FORMERCLIENT#`"`"I(#.  8(#(##60Vm݌ /(#' Ќ  Vm  Vm0     f    PROPOSEDRULE1.10 *Q%)  ` IMPUTEDDISQUALIFICATION:GENERALRULE#`"`"I(#.:(#(##65#X XX2X M#2X XXX Vm݌ *:&* Ќ  Vm  VmI0     VmIe݌ (#(# Ќ    _i_ -(-  Vm  Vm,0     f  g   PROPOSEDRULE1.11   ` SUCCESSIVEGOVERNMENTANDPRIVATEEMPLOYMENT#`"`"I(#.@(#(##72Vm,H݌  Ќ  Vm  Vm_0       PROPOSEDRULE1.12 T  ` FORMERJUDGEORARBITRATOR#`"`"I(#..(#(##76Vm_{݌ =  Ќ  Vm  Vmk 0       PROPOSEDRULE1.13  _  ` ORGANIZATIONALCLIENTS#`"`"I(#.*(#(##78Vmk ݌  H Ќ  Vm  Vms!0       PROPOSEDRULE1.14     ` CLIENTUNDERADISABILITY#`"`"I(#.\\-(#(##84Vms!!݌   Ќ  Vm  Vm~"0     0(#(#PROPOSEDRULE1.15   0` (#(#SAFEKEEPINGPROPERTY#`"`"I(#.(` (#` (##88Vm~""݌ n  Ќ  Vm  Vm#0     0(#(#PROPOSEDRULE1.16 @ 0` (#(#DECLININGANDTERMINATINGREPRESENTATION#`"`"I(#.OO=` (#` (##93Vm##݌ )y Ќ  Vm  Vm$0       PROPOSEDRULE1.17 K  ` SALEOFALAWPRACTICE#!!H(#.ff+(#(##101Vm$$݌ 4 Ќ  Vm  Vm%0     CHAPTER2.THELAWYERASCOUNSELOR,INTERMEDIARY,ANDDISPUTE  RESOLUTIONNEUTRAL#!!H(#.!(#(##103Vm%%݌  Ќ  Vm  Vm&0       PROPOSEDRULE2.1 q  ` ADVISOR#!!H(#. (#(##103Vm&&݌ Z Ќ  Vm  Vm'0       PROPOSEDRULE2.2 ,|  ` LAWYERSERVINGASINTERMEDIARYBETWEENCLIENTS#!!H(#.C(#(##105Vm''݌ e Ќ  Vm  Vm(0       PROPOSEDRULE2.3  7  ` EVALUATIONFORUSEBYTHIRDPERSONS#!!H(#.KK7(#(##112Vm()݌ !   Ќ  Vm  Vm*0       PROPOSEDRULE2.4 #"  ` LAWYERASDISPUTERESOLUTIONNEUTRAL#!!H(#.jj9(#(##115Vm***݌ $# Ќ  f  CHAPTER3.ADVOCATE!!H(#. 123 ]&!%    PROPOSEDRULE3.1 /(#'    ` MERITORIOUSCLAIMSANDCONTENTIONS!!H(#.cc6123#X XX2X #2X XXX Ԉ )h$(   ii -(- 4< 4 4  p,f  g   PROPOSEDRULE3.2    EXPEDITINGLITIGATION!!H(#.TT$125  Vm  Vm-0       PROPOSEDRULE3.3 k  ` CANDORTOWARDTHETRIBUNAL#!!H(#..(#(##127Vm--݌ T Ќ  Vm  Vm.0       PROPOSEDRULE3.4 & v  ` FAIRNESSTOOPPOSINGPARTYANDCOUNSEL#!!H(#.:(#(##141Vm..݌  _ Ќ  Vm  Vm/0       PROPOSEDRULE3.5  1   ` IMPARTIALITYANDDECORUMOFTHETRIBUNAL#!!H(#.<(#(##145Vm//݌    Ќ  Vm  Vm00       PROPOSEDRULE3.6    ` TRIALPUBLICITY#!!H(#.#(#(##151Vm01݌   Ќ  Vm  Vm10       PROPOSEDRULE3.7 W   ` LAWYERASWITNESS#!!H(#.ww%(#(##154Vm12݌ @ Ќ  Vm  Vm20       PROPOSEDRULE3.8 b  ` SPECIALRESPONSIBILITIESOFAPROSECUTOR#!!H(#.<(#(##156Vm23݌ K Ќ  Vm  Vm40       PROPOSEDRULE3.9   ` ADVOCATEINNONADJUDICATIVEPROCEEDINGS#!!H(#.<(#(##161Vm4 4݌  Ќ  Vm  Vm50     CHAPTER4.TRANSACTIONSWITHPERSONSOTHERTHANCLIENTS#!!H(#.B(#(##163Vm5:5݌  Ќ  Vm  Vm60       PROPOSEDRULE4.1 Z  ` TRUTHFULNESSANDCANDORINSTATEMENTSTOOTHERS#!!H(#.wwC(#(##163Vm6$6݌ C Ќ  Vm  Vm)70       PROPOSEDRULE4.2 e  ` COMMUNICATIONWITHPERSONREPRESENTEDBYCOUNSEL#!!H(#.D D D(#(##167Vm)7E7݌ N Ќ  Vm  VmK80       PROPOSEDRULE4.3 !    ` DEALINGWITHUNREPRESENTEDPERSON#!!H(#.5(#(##171VmK8g8݌ " ! Ќ    PROPOSEDRULE4.4 $#    ` RESPECTFORRIGHTSOFTHIRDPERSONS!!H(#.7173 t% $ Vm  Vm:0     CHAPTER5.LAWFIRMS,LEGALDEPARTMENTS,ANDLEGAL F'"& SERVICEORGANIZATIONS#!!H(#.$(#(##176Vm::݌ /(#' Ќ    iii#X XX2X 7,#2X XXX  -(- 5 5 c 5  ;Vm  Vm;0       PROPOSEDRULE5.1   ` RESPONSIBILITIESOFAPARTNER,MANAGINGLAWYEROR  @   ЀSUPERVISORYLAWYER#!!H(#.::-(#(##176#X XX2X J;#Vm;;݌ k Ќ  Vm  Vmq=0       PROPOSEDRULE5.2 =   ` RESPONSIBILITIESOFA  SUBORDINATELAWYER#!!H(#.:(#(##180Vmq==݌ & v Ќ  Vm  Vm>0       PROPOSEDRULE5.3  H  ` RESPONSIBILITIESREGARDING_NONLAWYER_ԀASSISTANTS#!!H(#.C(#(##182Vm>>݌  1  Ќ  Vm  Vm?0       PROPOSEDRULE5.4    ` PROFESSIONALINDEPENDENCEOFALAWYER#!!H(#.9(#(##184Vm?@݌   Ќ  Vm  Vm A0       PROPOSEDRULE5.5 n   ` UNAUTHORIZEDPRACTICEOFLAW#!!H(#.0(#(##187Vm A'A݌ W  Ќ  Vm  VmB0       PROPOSEDRULE5.6 )y  ` RESTRICTIONSONRIGHTTOPRACTICE#!!H(#.5(#(##189VmB5B݌ b Ќ  Vm  Vm,C0       PROPOSEDRULE5.7 4  ` RESPONSIBILITIESREGARDINGLAWRELATEDSERVICES#!!H(#.C(#(##191Vm,CHC݌  Ќ  Vm  VmMD0     CHAPTER6.PUBLICSERVICE#!!H(#.%(#(##195VmMDiD݌  Ќ  Vm  VmE0       PROPOSEDRULE6.1 q  ` PROBONO_PUBLICO_ԀREPRESENTATION#!!H(#.4(#(##195VmE6E݌ Z Ќ  Vm  VmKF0       PROPOSEDRULE6.2 ,|  ` ACCEPTINGCOURTAPPOINTMENTS#!!H(#.0(#(##199VmKFgF݌ e Ќ  Vm  VmYG0       PROPOSEDRULE6.3  7  ` MEMBERSHIPINLEGALSERVICESORGANIZATION#!!H(#.::=(#(##201VmYGuG݌ !   Ќ  Vm  VmtH0       PROPOSEDRULE6.4 #"  ` LAWREFORMACTIVITIESAFFECTINGCLIENTINTERESTS#!!H(#.D(#(##203VmtHH݌ $# Ќ  2X XXX CHAPTER7.INFORMATIONABOUTLEGALSERVICES!!H(#.aa6204 ]&!% Vm  VmJ0       PROPOSEDRULE7.1 /(#'  ` COMMUNICATIONSCONCERNINGALAWYERSSERVICES#!!H(#.A(#(##204#X XX2X їI#VmJ2J݌ )h$( Ќ  Vm  VmZK0     2X XXX VmZKvK݌ (#(# Ќ  Vm  VmL0     #X XX2X ѬK#VmL"L݌ (#(# Ќ    iv2X XXX  -(-   3c" 38 XXdXXd8 "38 XXdXXd8 "  LVm  VmN0     f  g   PROPOSEDRULE7.2  0` (#(#ADVERTISINGANDOTHERCOMMUNICATIONSNOTDIRECTEDTO @"  @"  @"  @"  @"  @"  @"  @"  @"  @" VmN!N݌` (#` (# Ќ     ` SPECIFICALLYIDENTIFIEDRECIPIENTS!!H(#.6206 k #X XX2X L#g 2X XXX   PROPOSEDRULE7.3 =     ` SOLICITATIONANDOTHERCOMMUNICATIONSDIRECTEDTO  & v    ` SPECIFICALLYIDENTIFIEDRECIPIENTS!!H(#.6211  _ Vm  VmQ0       PROPOSEDRULE7.4  1   ` COMMUNICATIONOFFIELDSOFPRACTICE#!!H(#.^^7(#(##217VmQQ݌    Ќ  Vm  VmR0       PROPOSEDRULE7.5    ` FIRMNAMESANDLETTERHEADS#!!H(#..(#(##220VmRR݌   Ќ  Vm  VmS0       PROPOSEDRULE7.6 W   ` INTERMEDIARYORGANIZATIONS#!!H(#..(#(##223VmSS݌ @ Ќ  Vm  VmT0     CHAPTER8.MAINTAININGTHEINTEGRITYOFTHEPROFESSION#!!H(#.A(#(##234VmTT݌ b Ќ  Vm  VmU0       PROPOSEDRULE8.1 4  ` BARADMISSIONANDDISCIPLINARYMATTERS#!!H(#.:(#(##234VmUU݌  Ќ  Vm  VmV0       PROPOSEDRULE8.2   ` JUDICIALANDLEGALOFFICIALS#!!H(#.0(#(##236VmVV݌  Ќ  Vm  VmW0       PROPOSEDRULE8.3 Z  ` REPORTINGPROFESSIONALMISCONDUCT#!!H(#.666(#(##238VmWW݌ C Ќ  Vm  VmX0       PROPOSEDRULE8.4 e  ` MISCONDUCT#!!H(#.(#(##241VmXX݌ N Ќ  Vm  VmY0       PROPOSEDRULE8.5 !    ` DISCIPLINARYAUTHORITY;CHOICEOFLAW#!!H(#.9(#(##246VmYY݌ " ! Ќ  C  PROPOSEDTRANSITIONRULE $#    ` GOVERNINGIMPLEMENTATIONOFTENNESSEE t% $    ` RULESOFPROFESSIONALCONDUCT!!H(#.1250 ]&!% #X XX2X >P#2X XXX   f  g f  vf  g  -(- .٦ .  .  C\    8 XXdXXd8&OaPREAMBLE ,]   9]f    g [1]f  g Alawyerisanexpertinlawpursuingalearnedartinservicetoclientsandinthespirit  ofpublicserviceandengaginginthesepursuitsaspartofacommoncallingtopromotejusticeand l publicgood.Essentialcharacteristicsofthelawyerareknowledgeofthelaw,skillinapplyingthe U applicablelawtothefactualcontext,thoroughnessofpreparation,practicalandprudentialwisdom, >  ethicalconductandintegrity,anddedicationtojusticeandthepublicgood. ' w ]]  *!f  g [2]f  g Alawyerisarepresentativeofclients,anofficerofthelegalsystemandapublic  I citizenhavingspecialresponsibilityforthequalityofjustice.  2  `ch  f  g [3]f  g Asarepresentativeofclients,alawyerperformsvariousfunctions.Asadvisor,a   lawyerprovidesaclientwithaninformedunderstandingoftheclient'slegalrightsand   obligationsandexplainstheirpracticalimplications.Asadvocate,alawyerzealouslyassertsthe   client'spositionundertherulesoftheadversarysystem.Asnegotiator,alawyerseeksaresult o  advantageoustotheclientbutconsistentwithrequirementsofhonestdealingwithothers.As X  intermediarybetweenclients,alawyerseekstoreconciletheirdivergentinterestsasanadvisor A and,toalimitedextent,asaspokespersonforeachclient.Alawyeractsasevaluatorby *z examiningaclient'slegalaffairsandreportingaboutthemtotheclientortoothers. c   f  g [4]f  g Inallprofessionalfunctionsalawyershouldbecompetent,promptanddiligent.A 5 lawyershouldmaintaincommunicationwithaclientconcerningtherepresentation.Alawyer  shouldkeepinconfidenceinformationrelatingtorepresentationofaclientexceptsofaras  disclosureisrequiredorpermittedbytheRulesofProfessionalConductorotherlaw.    f  g [5]f  g Alawyer'sconductshouldconformtotherequirementsofthelaw,bothin r professionalservicetoclientsandinthelawyer'sbusinessandpersonalaffairs.Alawyershould [ usethelaw'sproceduresonlyforlegitimatepurposesandnottoharassorintimidateothers.A D lawyershoulddemonstraterespectforthelegalsystemandforthosewhoserveit,including -} judges,otherlawyersandpublicofficials.Whileitisalawyer'sduty,whennecessary,to f challengetherectitudeofofficialaction,itisalsoalawyer'sdutytoupholdlegalprocess. O   f  g [6]f  g Asapubliccitizen,alawyershouldseekimprovementofthelaw,theadministration !!  ofjusticeandthequalityofservicerenderedbythelegalprofession.Asamemberofalearned " ! profession,alawyershouldcultivateknowledgeofthelawbeyonditsuseforclients,employ #" thatknowledgeinreformofthelawandworktostrengthenlegaleducation.Alawyershouldbe $# mindfulofdeficienciesintheadministrationofjusticeandofthefactthatthepoor,and u% $ sometimespersonswhoarenotpoor,cannotaffordadequatelegalassistance,andshould ^&!% thereforedevoteprofessionaltimeandcivicinfluenceintheirbehalf.Alawyershouldaidthe G'"& legalprofessioninpursuingtheseobjectivesandshouldhelpthebarregulateitselfinthepublic 0(#' interest. )i$(   f  g [7]f  g Manyofalawyer'sprofessionalresponsibilitiesareprescribedintheRulesof *;&* ProfessionalConduct,aswellassubstantiveandprocedurallaw.However,alawyerisalso +$'+ guidedbypersonalconscienceandtheapprobationofprofessionalpeers.Alawyershouldstrive  toattainthehighestlevelofskill,toimprovethelawandthelegalprofessionandtoexemplify  thelegalprofession'sidealsofpublicservice.    f  g [8]f  g Alawyer'sresponsibilitiesasarepresentativeofclients,anofficerofthelegalsystem T andapubliccitizenareusuallyharmonious.Thus,whenanopposingpartyiswellrepresented,a =  lawyercanbeazealousadvocateonbehalfofaclientandatthesametimeassumethatjusticeis & v beingdone.Soalso,alawyercanbesurethatpreservingclientconfidencesordinarilyservesthe  _ publicinterestbecausepeoplearemorelikelytoseeklegaladvice,andtherebyheedtheirlegal  H obligations,whentheyknowtheircommunicationswillbeprivate.  1    f  g [9]f  g Inthenatureoflawpractice,however,conflictingresponsibilitiesareencountered.   Virtuallyalldifficultethicalproblemsarisefromconflictbetweenalawyer'sresponsibilitiesto   clients,tothelegalsystemandtothelawyer'sowninterestinremaininganuprightpersonwhile   earningasatisfactoryliving.TheRulesofProfessionalConductprescribetermsforresolving n  suchconflicts.WithintheframeworkoftheseRulesmanydifficultissuesofprofessional W  discretioncanarise.Suchissuesmustberesolvedthroughtheexerciseofsensitiveprofessional @ andmoraljudgmentguidedbythebasicprinciplesunderlyingtheRules. )y   f  g [10]f  g Thelegalprofessionislargelyself-governing.Althoughotherprofessionsalsohave K beengrantedpowersofself-government,thelegalprofessionisuniqueinthisrespectbecauseof 4 thecloserelationshipbetweentheprofessionandtheprocessesofgovernmentandlaw  enforcement.Thisconnectionismanifestedinthefactthatultimateauthorityoverthelegal  professionisvestedlargelyinthecourts.    f  g [11]f  g Totheextentthatlawyersmeettheobligationsoftheirprofessionalcalling,the q occasionforgovernmentregulationisobviated.Self-regulationalsohelpsmaintainthelegal Z profession'sindependencefromgovernmentdomination.Anindependentlegalprofessionisan C importantforceinpreservinggovernmentunderlaw,forabuseoflegalauthorityismorereadily ,| challengedbyaprofessionwhosemembersarenotdependentongovernmentfortherightto e practice. N   f  g [12]f  g Thelegalprofession'srelativeautonomycarrieswithitspecialresponsibilitiesof !   self-government.Theprofessionhasaresponsibilitytoassurethatitsregulationsareconceived " ! inthepublicinterestandnotinfurtheranceofparochialorself-interestedconcernsofthebar. #" EverylawyerisresponsibleforobservanceoftheRulesofProfessionalConduct.Alawyer $# shouldalsoaidinsecuringtheirobservancebyotherlawyers.Neglectoftheseresponsibilities t% $ compromisestheindependenceoftheprofessionandthepublicinterestwhichitserves. ]&!%   f  g [13]f  g Lawyersplayavitalroleinthepreservationofsociety.Thefulfillmentofthisrole /(#' requiresanunderstandingbylawyersoftheirrelationshiptoourlegalsystem.TheRulesof )h$( ProfessionalConduct,whenproperlyapplied,servetodefinethatrelationship. *Q%) @'  SCOPE @Ԁ  +#'+ &Oa  & &    f  g [1]f  g TheRulesofProfessionalConductarerulesofreason.Theyshouldbeinterpreted  withreferencetothepurposesoflegalrepresentationandofthelawitself.SomeoftheRulesare  imperatives,castintheterms"shall"or"shallnot."Thesedefineproperconductforpurposesof k professionaldiscipline.Others,generallycastintheterm"may,"arepermissiveanddefineareas T undertheRulesinwhichthelawyerhasprofessionaldiscretion.Nodisciplinaryactionshouldbe =  takenwhenthelawyerchoosesnottoactoractswithintheboundsofsuchdiscretion.Other & v Rulesdefinethenatureofrelationshipsbetweenthelawyerandothers.TheRulesarethuspartly  _ obligatoryanddisciplinaryandpartlyconstitutiveanddescriptiveinthattheydefinealawyer's  H professionalrole.ManyoftheCommentsusetheterm"should."Commentsdonotadd  1  obligationstotheRulesbutprovideeitheradditionalguidanceforpracticingincompliancewith    theRulesormakesuggestionsaboutgoodpracticewhichlawyerswouldbewelladvisedtoheed   eventhoughtheRulesdonotrequirethemtodoso.     f  g [2]f  g TheRulespresupposealargerlegalcontextshapingthelawyer'srole.Thatcontext n  includescourtrulesandstatutesrelatingtomattersof_licensure_,lawsdefiningspecific W  obligationsoflawyersandsubstantiveandprocedurallawingeneral.Compliancewiththe @ Rules,aswithalllawinanopensociety,dependsprimarilyuponunderstandingandvoluntary )y compliance,secondarilyuponreinforcementbypeerandpublicopinionandfinally,when b necessary,uponenforcementthroughdisciplinaryproceedings.TheRulesdonot,however, K exhaustthemoralandethicalconsiderationsthatshouldinformalawyer,fornoworthwhile 4 humanactivitycanbecompletelydefinedbylegalrules.TheRulessimplyprovideaframework  fortheethicalpracticeoflaw.    f  g [3]f  g Furthermore,forpurposesofdeterminingthelawyer'sauthorityandresponsibility,  principlesofsubstantivelawexternaltotheseRulesdeterminewhetheraclient-lawyer q relationshipexists.Mostofthedutiesflowingfromtheclient-lawyerrelationshipattachonly Z aftertheclienthasrequestedthelawyertorenderlegalservicesandthelawyerhasagreedtodo C so.Buttherearesomeduties,suchasthatofconfidentialityunderRule1.6,thatmayattach ,| whenthelawyeragreestoconsiderwhetheraclient-lawyerrelationshipshallbeestablished. e Whetheraclient-lawyerrelationshipexistsforanyspecificpurposecandependonthe N circumstancesandmaybeaquestionoffact.  7   f  g [4]f  g Undervariouslegalprovisions,includingconstitutional,statutoryandcommonlaw, " ! theresponsibilitiesofgovernmentlawyersmayf  Ԁg f  g differfromthoseoflawyersf  g Ԁinprivate #" client-lawyerrelationships.Forexample,f  g f  g Ԁincertaincircumstances,theAttorneyGeneralof $# Tennesseef  g Ԁhaf  g f  g sf  g Ԁauthorityonbehalfofthegovernmenttodecideuponsettlementorwhetherto t% $ appealfromanadversejudgment.f  g f  g ԀThef  g Ԁsamemaybetrueoff  g Ԁlawyersemployedbythefederal ]&!% government.Also,certaingovernmentlawyersunderthesupervisionoftheseofficersmaybe F'"& authorizedtorepresentseveralgovernmentagenciesf  g ,officersoremployeesf  g Ԁinf  g Ԁlegalcontroversies /(#' incircumstanceswhereaprivatelawyercouldnotrepresentmultipleprivateclients.f  g  )h$( GovernmentlawyersinTennesseearealsosubjecttotheOpenMeetingsActasinterpretedby *Q%) theTennesseecourts.f  g ԀTheyalsomayhaveauthoritytorepresentthe"publicinterest"in *:&* circumstanceswhereaprivatelawyerwouldnotbeauthorizedtodoso.TheseRulesarenot +#'+ intendedtoabrogatethepowersandresponsibilitiesofgovernmentlawyersunderfederallawor  undertheconstitution,statutes,orcommonlawofTennessee.    f  g [5]f  g FailuretocomplywithanobligationorprohibitionimposedbyaRuleisabasisfor k invokingthedisciplinaryprocess.TheRulespresupposethatdisciplinaryassessmentofa T lawyer'sconductwillbemadeonthebasisofthefactsandcircumstancesastheyexistedatthe =  timeoftheconductinquestionandinrecognitionofthefactthatalawyeroftenhastoactupon & v uncertainorincompleteevidenceofthesituation.Moreover,theRulespresupposethatwhether  _ ornotdisciplineshouldbeimposedforaviolation,andtheseverityofasanction,dependonall  H thecircumstances,suchasthewillfulnessandseriousnessoftheviolation,extenuatingfactors  1  andwhethertherehavebeenpreviousviolations.      f  g [6]f  g ViolationofaRuleshouldnotgiverisetoacauseofactionnorshoulditcreateany   presumptionthatalegaldutyhasbeenbreached.TheRulesaredesignedtoprovideguidanceto   lawyersandtoprovideastructureforregulatingconductthroughdisciplinaryagencies.Theyare n  notdesignedtobeabasisforcivilliability.Furthermore,thepurposeoftheRulescanbe W  subvertedwhentheyareinvokedbyopposingpartiesasproceduralweapons.Thefactthata @ Ruleisajustbasisforalawyer'sself-assessment,orforsanctioningalawyerunderthe )y administrationofadisciplinaryauthority,doesnotimplythatanantagonistinacollateral b proceedingortransactionhasstandingtoseekenforcementoftheRule.Accordingly,nothingin K theRulesshouldbedeemedtoaugmentanysubstantivelegaldutyoflawyersorthe 4 extra-disciplinaryconsequencesofviolatingsuchaduty.    f  g [7]f  g Moreover,theseRulesarenotintendedtogovernoraffectjudicialapplicationof  eithertheattorney-clientorworkproductprivilege.Thoseprivilegesweredevelopedtopromote  compliancewithlawandfairnessinlitigation.Inrelianceontheattorney-clientprivilege,clients q areentitledtoexpectthatcommunicationswithinthescopeoftheprivilegewillbeprotected Z againstcompelleddisclosure.Theattorney-clientprivilegeisthatoftheclientandnotofthe C lawyer.ThefactthatinexceptionalsituationsthelawyerundertheRuleshasalimiteddiscretion ,| todiscloseaclientconfidencedoesnotvitiatethepropositionthat,asageneralmatter,theclient e hasareasonableexpectationthatinformationrelatingtotheclientwillnotbevoluntarily N disclosedandthatdisclosureofsuchinformationmaybejudiciallycompelledonlyin  7 accordancewithrecognizedexceptionstotheattorney-clientandworkproductprivileges. !     f  g [8]f  g Thelawyer'sexerciseofdiscretionnottodiscloseinformationwhenpermittedtodo #" sobyRule1.6shouldnotbesubjecttoreexamination.Permittingsuchreexaminationwouldbe $# incompatiblewiththegeneralpolicyofpromotingcompliancewithlawthroughassurancesthat t% $ communicationswillbeprotectedagainstdisclosure. ]&!%   [9]f  g TheCommentaccompanyingeachRuleexplainsandillustratesthemeaningand#X XX2X \#2X XXX  /(#' purposeoftheRule.ThePreambleandthisnoteonScopeprovidegeneralorientation.The )h$( Commentsareintendedeitherasguidestointerpretationorassuggestionsofgoodpractice,but *Q%) thetextofeachRuleisauthoritative. *:&*  +#'+ )bf  CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges  Made #X XX2X 8#ť2X XXX   #X XX2X y#  1.EachparagraphinthePreambleandScopehasbeennumbered.Thisparallelsthe I enumerationintheCommentsandwillfacilitatecitation. 2   2.Scope,Paragraph[4],hasbeenmodifiedinresponsetotheCommentfiledwiththe   CourtbytheAttorneyGeneralofTennessee.TheCommitteebelievesthatthischangeis   responsivetotheAttorneyGeneralsconcern,whilealsoacknowledgingthatlawyersforother   governmentalentitiesmayalsohavespecialpowersandresponsibilities.Ratherthancreate o   uniqueandnonuniformTennesseeexceptionsineachofthevariousrulesaboutwhichthe X   AttorneyGeneralvoicedconcern,theCommitteebelievesthatthisrevisionaffordsTennessee A  courtstheflexibilitytorecognizethedistinctivelegalresponsibilitiesandprerogativesofthe *z  AttorneyGeneralandothergovernmentlawyers.2X XXX f  g  c  Ц    CHAPTER1  CLIENTLAWYERRELATIONSHIP  hPROPOSEDRULE1.0 n ޫDEFINITIONS  X  r[O(a)"Belief"or"Believes"denotesthatthepersoninvolvedactuallysupposedthefactinquestion + { tobetrue.Aperson'sbeliefmaybeinferredfromcircumstances.  d -(b) ConsentsinWritingor WrittenConsentdenoteseither(_i_)awrittenconsentexecutedby  6  aclient,or(ii)oralconsentgivenbyaclientwhichthelawyerconfirmsinwritinginamanner    whichcanbeeasilyunderstoodbytheclientandwhichispromptlytransmittedtotheclientf  g Ԁby   meansreasonablycalculatedtoreachtheclientf  g .     (c)"Consult"or"Consultation"denotescommunicationofinformationreasonablysufficientto s  permittheclienttoappreciatethesignificanceofthematterinquestion. \  (d)"Firm"or"LawFirm"denotesalawyerorlawyersinaprivatefirm,lawyersemployedinthe .~ legaldepartmentofacorporation,governmentagency,orotherorganizationandlawyers g employedinalegalservicesorganization.SeeComment,Rule1.10. P   (e)"Fraudor Fraudulent"denotesanintentionallyfalseormisleadingstatementofmaterial " fact,anintentionalomissionfromastatementoffactofsuchadditionalinformationaswouldbe   necessarytomakethestatementsmadenotmateriallymisleading,andsuchotherconductbya  personintendedtodeceiveapersonortribunalwithrespecttoamaterialissueinaproceedingor  othermatter. `  v (f)"Knowingly,""Known,"or"Knows"denotesactualawarenessofthefactinquestion.A H person'sknowledgemaybeinferredfromcircumstances. 1   (g)"Material"denotessomethingwhichareasonablepersonwouldconsiderimportantin  S assessingordetermininghowtoactinamatter.  < (h) Partnerdenotesapartnerinalawfirmorganizedasapartnershiporprofessionallimited "! liabilitypartnership,ashareholderinlawfirmorganizedasaprofessionalcorporation,amember #" inalawfirmorganizedasaprofessionallimitedliabilitycompany,orag Ԁsolepractitionerwho $# employsotherlawyersor_nonlawyers_Ԁinconnectionwithhisorherpractice. y% $ (_i_)"Reasonable"or"Reasonably"whenusedinrelationtoconductbyalawyerdenotesthe K'"& conductofareasonablyprudentandcompetentlawyer. 4(#'   (j)"Reasonablebelief'or"Reasonablybelieves"whenusedinreferencetoalawyerdenotes *V%) thatthelawyerbelievesthematterinquestionandthatthecircumstancesaresuchthatthebelief *?&* isreasonable. +('+   (k)"Reasonablyshouldknow"whenusedinreferencetoalawyerdenotesthatalawyerof  reasonableprudenceandcompetencewouldascertainthematterinquestion.    (l)"Substantial"denotessomethingthatisnotonlymaterialbutalsoofclearandweighty T importance. =  Ѐ & v (m)"Tribunal"denotesacourtorotheradjudicativebody.j   _   COMMENT  l   2qX2X   #2X X2q:#Incircumstancesinwhichtheserulesrequireeitherconsentinwritingorwrittenconsent,    therequirementmaybesatisfiedbyanelectronictransmissionf  g f  g thatisreasonablycalculatedto   reachtheclient,providedthatf  g Ԁthetransmissioncanbereducedtowritingorpermanentlyretained   inelectronicformat.      COMMITTEENOTES  X  b ComparisonToCurrentTennesseeEthicsRules  +{   TherearenocounterpartstothesedefinitionsintheDisciplinaryRulesexceptasfollows: N 0  (d)FirmorLawFirm: AlawfirmisdefinedintheDisciplinaryRulesasincluding a   professionallegalcorporationandaprofessionallegallimitedliabilitylegalcompany.f     Paragraph(d)broadensthisdefinitionbyreferringmoregenerallytoaprivatefirmand  broadeningonedefinitiontoincludelegaldepartmentsandlegalservicesorganizations  aswellasthetraditionalprivatelawfirm.w(#(#    (m)Tribunal:ThisdefinitionisthesameasDisciplinaryRuleDefinition(8). J   ComparisonToABAModelRules  l   ThedefinitionsareidenticaltotheModelRuledefinitionsexceptasfollows:  ?  f    (b)ConsentsinWriting:ThereisnocounterpartintheModelRules. "" #X XX2X #2X XXX f  g 0  (e)FraudorFraudulent:TheModelRuledefinesthesetermsasdenoting conductthat $$ hasapurposetodeceiveandnotmerelynegligentmisrepresentationorfailureto_apprisf  g f  g f  g e_ |% % anotherofrelevantinformation.Theproposeddefinitionincludesspecificreferenceto e&!& intentionallyfalseandmisleadingstatementsandanintentionalomissionfroma N'"' statementoffactofsuchadditionalinformationaswouldbenecessarytomakethe 7(#( statementsmadenotmateriallymisleading. )p$)(#(# Ѐ   *Y%*  0  (g)Material:Thereisnodefinitionof materialintheModelRules.*B&+(#(#  ++', 0  (h)Partner:TheModelRuledefinitionofa partnerislimitedto amemberofa  partnershipanda shareholderinalawfirmorganizedasaprofessionalcorporation.  TheCommitteehasbroadenedthisdefinitionwhichisusedinRules5.1through5.4  toincludemembersin_PLLCs_Ԁandasolepractitionerwhoemploysotherlawyersor k _nonlawyers_#X XX2X R#2X XXX Ԁinconnectionwithhisorherpractice.T(#(#  0  (l)Substantial:Thedefinitionhasbeenslightlymodifiedtohighlighttherelationship & v betweenmateriality(somethingareasonablelawyerwouldconsiderimportant)and  _ substantiality(somethingthatisofclearandweightyimportance). H(#(#  ChangesMadeto1997CommitteePreliminaryDraftInResponsetoComments       Thedefinitionsweretransferredfroma TerminologysectionattheendofthePreamble   toanewRule1.0.     Thefollowingdefinitionsweredeletedasunnecessary: X    Agencydenotesagovernmentalorganizationorentityotherthanatribunal. *z   Employeedenotesapersonwhoisactingonbehalfofalawyerorlawfirmandwho L   hasagreedtobesubjecttoalawyersrighttocontrolwithrespecttoactionstakenon 5   behalfofthelawyerorlawfirm.    "Organizationorotherlegalentity"denotestrusts,estates,partnerships,limited     partnerships,corporations,limitedliabilitycompanies,limitedliabilitypartnerships,and    otherrelationshipsregardedinlawashavingalegalexistenceseparateanddistinctfrom r   thatofthepersonswhoarepartiestotherelationship. [   "Person"denotesanindividual,anorganizationorotherlegalentity,oranagency. -}   Paragraph(b)defining ConsentsinWritingwasadded. O  #X XX2X 1#CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges !!  Made2X XXX  " ! #X XX2X .#  1.AredundantreferencetolimitedliabilitypartnershipsinParagraph(h)sdefinitionof $#  partnerwasdeleted.X XXX  x% $   2.InresponsetoasuggestionfrommembersoftheTBAsTax,Probate,andTrustLaw J'"& Section,Paragraph(b)andComment[1]weremodifiedtoclarifythatawrittenconfirmationof 3(#' anoralconsentmustbetransmittedtotheclientby meansreasonablycalculatedtoreachthe )l$( client.Thisincreasesthelikelihoodthattheclientwillreceivetheconfirmationandprotects *U%) thelawyerwherethelawyerhastransmittedtheconfirmationbyreasonablemeans,buttheclient *>&* doesnotreceiveit.#X XXX &#2X XXX   +''+ f  g   PROPOSEDRULE1.1  COMPETENCE   0Alawyershallprovidecompetentrepresentationtoaclient.Competentrepresentationrequires m thelegalknowledge,skill,thoroughnessandpreparationreasonablynecessaryforthe V representation. ?    Ӏ COMMENT   a    LegalKnowledgeandSkill   7    [1]Indeterminingwhetheralawyeremploystherequisiteknowledgeandskillina   particularmatter,relevantfactorsincludetherelativecomplexityandspecializednatureofthe   matter,thelawyer'sgeneralexperience,thelawyer'strainingandexperienceinthefieldin   question,thepreparationandstudythelawyerisabletogivethematterandwhetheritisfeasible u  toreferthematterto,orassociateorconsultwith,alawyerofestablishedcompetenceinthe ^  fieldinquestion.Inmanyinstances,therequiredproficiencyisthatofageneralpractitioner. G Expertiseinaparticularfieldoflawmayberequiredinsomecircumstances. 0   [2]Alawyerneednotnecessarilyhavespecialtrainingorpriorexperiencetohandle R legalproblemsofatypewithwhichthelawyerisunfamiliar.Anewlyadmittedlawyercanbeas ; competentasapractitionerwithlongexperience.Someimportantlegalskills,suchasthe $ analysisofprecedent,theevaluationofevidenceandlegaldrafting,arerequiredinalllegal   problems.Perhapsthemostfundamentallegalskillconsistsofdeterminingwhatkindoflegal  problemsasituationmayinvolve,askillthatnecessarilytranscendsanyparticularspecialized  knowledge.Alawyercanprovideadequaterepresentationinawhollynovelfieldthrough x necessarystudy.Competentrepresentationcanalsobeprovidedthroughtheassociationofa a lawyerofestablishedcompetenceinthefieldinquestion. J   [3]g f  g Inasituationinwhichaclientisthreatenedwithimminentandirreparableharm,f  g Ԁa l lawyermaygiveadviceorassistanceinamatterinwhichthelawyerdoesnothavetheskill  U ordinarilyrequiredwherereferraltoorconsultationorassociationwithanotherlawyerwouldbe  > impractical.Eveninf  g f  g Ԁsuchasituationf  g ,however,assistanceshouldbelimitedtothatreasonably !'  necessaryinthecircumstances,forillconsideredactionf  g Ԁcanjeopardizetheclient'sinterest. "!   [4]Alawyermayacceptrepresentationwheretherequisitelevelofcompetencecanbe $# achievedbyreasonablepreparation.Thisappliesaswelltoalawyerwhoisappointedascounsel {% $ foranunrepresentedperson.SeealsoRule6.2. d&!%    ThoroughnessandPreparation  6(#' 7  [5]Competenthandlingofaparticularmatterincludesinquiryintoandanalysisofthe  *Y%) factualandlegalelementsoftheproblem,anduseofmethodsandproceduresmeetingthe *B&* standardsofcompetentpractitioners.Italsoincludesadequatepreparation.Therequired ++'+ attentionandpreparationaredeterminedinpartbywhatisatstake;majorlitigationandcomplex  transactionsordinarilyrequiremoreelaboratetreatmentthanmattersoflesserconsequence.     MaintainingCompetence  k   [6]Tomaintaintherequisiteknowledgeandskill,alawyershouldengageinregular @  continuingstudyandeducationwhichispertinenttothelawyerspracticeandshould ) y conscientiouslysatisfyallrequirementsforcontinuinglegaleducationinalljurisdictionsin  b whichthelawyerislicensedtopracticelaw.Ifasystemofpeerreviewhasbeenestablished,the  K lawyershouldconsidermakinguseofitinappropriatecircumstances.  4    _DEFINITIONAL_ԀCROSSREFERENCES   < ReasonablySeeRule1.0(_i_)      COMMITTEENOTES \   ComparisonToCurrentTennesseeEthicsRules  0   DR6101(A)(1)providesthatalawyershallnothandleamatter"whichheknowsor U shouldknowthatheisnotcompetenttohandle,withoutassociatinghimselfwithalawyerwho > iscompetenttohandleit."DR6101(A)(2)requires"preparationadequateinthe ' circumstances."Rule1.1morefullyparticularizestheelementsofcompetence.WhereasDR6  101(A)(3)prohibitsthe"[_n]eglect_Ԁofalegalmatter,"Rule1.1doesnotcontainsucha  prohibition.Instead,Rule1.1affirmativelyrequiresthelawyertobecompetent.   ComparisonToABAModelRules 󀀀 d   ProposedRule1.1isidenticaltoABAModelRule1.1. 9  ChangesMadeto1997CommitteePreliminaryDraftInResponsetoComments  \    TheCommitteemodifiedComment[1]bydeletingthetwoexamplesofwhenalawyer !/  mightbeheldtothestandardofaspecialist whenalawyerispracticinginafieldoflaw "! regardedbylawyersasrequiringspecialexpertise,orinwhichlawyersmaybecertifiedas #" specialistsbytheCommissiononSpecializationandContinuingLegalEducationand whena $# lawyerclaimstohavespecialexpertise. % $ ]  TheCommitteemodifiedComment[2]bydeletingthestatementthat alawyershould U'"& notundertaketherepresentationofaclientinamatterthelawyerisnotpersonallycompetentto >(#' handleunlesstheclientisfirstadvisedthatthelawyerwillneedtoassociateanotherlawyerin ')w$( thematter. *`%)   TheCommitteedeletedComments[7]through[10],whichreadasfollows: +2'+ Ї0   ` [7]InordertobecertifiedasaspecialistbytheCommissiononSpecialization  andContinuingLegalEducation,alawyermustcarryatleast$500,000malpractice  insurance.Althoughthereisnorulerequiringlawyerstocarrymalpracticeinsurance,a  lawyershouldcarrysuchmalpracticeinsurance,orhaveinreservesufficientassets,as k willenablethelawyertocompensatethelawyersclientsforreasonablyforeseeable T lossesthatmaybecausedbythefailureofthelawyertorepresenttheclientin =  accordancewiththestandardsofreasonablelawyersinthisTennessee.& v(#(# 0   ` [8]Althoughthedutysetforthinthisruleisonlyadutytoprovidecompetent  H representationtoapersonalawyerisrepresentingasaclient,alawyershouldalsoact  1  reasonablytopreventaprospectiveclientwhothelawyerdeclinestorepresentina    matterfromerroneouslyassumingthatthelawyersdecisionnottoundertakethe   representationconstitutesadvicewithrespecttothemeritsofthemattertheclienthas   discussedwiththelawyer.Itisparticularlyimportantthatthelawyerdosoifthe   prospectiveclienthasconsultedwiththelawyeraboutthematteratthelawyersoffice,at n  amutuallyprearrangedmeeting,oratameetinginitiatedbythelawyer.Upondeciding W  nottorepresenttheprospectiveclientinthematter,thelawyershould,priortoorwithin @ areasonabletimeaftertheconclusionoftheconsultation,communicatewiththe )y prospectiveclientinawayreasonablycalculatedtoinformtheprospectiveclientthatthe b lawyerisnotundertakingtherepresentationandthattheprospectiveclientshould K promptlyconsultanotherlawyerifheorsheisstillinterestedinpursuingthematter.In 4 manyinstancesalawyerwhodeclinestorepresentaprospectiveclientinamatterwillbe  welladvisedtocommunicatethisinformationtotheprospectiveclientinwriting.(#(#        ` [9]SeeRule1.8(H)withrespecttothevalidityofagreementsbetweenalawyer    andaclientwhichprospectivelylimitthelawyersliabilityformalpracticeorsettleclient q   claimsthatthelawyerdidnotprovidethemwithcompetentrepresentation.Although Z   Rule1.2(D)permitsalawyerandclienttoagreetolimittheobjectivesorscopeofthe C   lawyersrepresentation,thelawyerisprohibitedfromenteringintoanysuchagreement ,|   aswouldpreventthelawyerfromprovidingtheclientwiththecompetentrepresentation e   requiredbythisRule. N 0   ` [10]Ifalawyercomestoknowthatheorshehasnotprovidedcompetent !   representationtoaclientandthatthefailuretodosoislikelytohaveorhashada " ! materialadverseeffectontherepresentationoftheclient,thelawyershouldtryto #" preventorrectifytheadverseeffect.Ifunabletodoso,thelawyershouldconsultwith $# theclientabouttheproblemandactreasonablytocompensateclientforlossescausedby t% $ thefailureofthelawyertoprovidethecompetentrepresentationrequiredbythisrule.]&!%(#(#   AlldeletionsweremadetobringProposedTennesseeRule1.1intoconformitywith /(#' ABAModelRule1.1.AlthoughtheCommitteeapprovedthesubstanceofthedeletedmaterial, )h$( itwastheconclusionthatitwasnotsufficientlyimportanttowarrantsacrificingtheuniformity *Q%) thatcomeswithadoptionoftheABAModelRule. *:&*  +#'+ #X XX2X # CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges  Made 2X XXX   #X XX2X )#2X XXX #X XX2X р#  1.InlightoftheCommitteesapprovalofasuggestionfrommembersoftheTBAsTax, m ProbateandTrustLawSectionthatComments[6]and[7]toRule1.14bemodifiedtoreplace V theconceptofan emergencywithamorespecificreferencetosituationsinwhichaclientwill ?  suffer imminentandirreparableharm,theCommitteeconcludedthatComment[3]tothisRule ( x shouldbesimilarlymodified.Inbothsituations,theCommitteewasconcernedthattheconcept  a ofanemergencymightbetoonarrowlyconstruedsothatitwouldonlyembraceunexpectedand  J suddenlyoccurringsituations,ratherthanallsituationsinwhichaclientneedsalawyershelpto  3  preventimminentandirreparableharm.Thischangeisalsoconsistentwiththesuggestionofthe    ProfessionalismCommitteeoftheKnoxvilleBarAssociationthatComment[3]sreferencetoan    emergencybedefined.      2.TheTBACommitteeconsidered,butdidnotapprove,therecommendationofthe q  BoardofProfessionalResponsibilitythatProposedRule1.1bereplacedwiththesubstanceof Z  DR6101(A).TheBoardcontendsthatDR6101(A)(1)affordsclientsmoreprotection,willbe C easiertoenforce,andgivesmoreguidancetolawyers.Forthefollowingreasons,theTBA ,| CommitteedisagreeswiththeBoardsconclusionsforanumberofreasons: e    ` a.ReplacingProposedRule1.1withDR6101wouldbeinconsistentwiththe 7   Committeesgoalofpromotinguniformityamongstateethicsrules.      ` b.ProposedRule1.1affordsclientsprotectionidenticaltotheprotection   0  affordedbyDR6101(A)(2)and(3).Thereisnoquestionthatalawyerwho  @   violatesDR6 101(A)(2)( alawyershallnothandlealegalmatterwithout  @  t preparationadequateinthecircumstances)willhavefailedtoprovide competent @6!  ] representationtoaclientasdefinedinProposedRules1.1toinclude preparation @(!  F reasonablynecessaryforthe h representation.Comment[5]reinforcesthispointby @b!  / repeatingthatreasonablycompetentrepresentation alsoincludesadequatepreparation. @#  h TheCommentprovidesfurtherguidancebystatingthat requiredattentionand   Q preparationaredeterminedinpartbywhatisatstake;majorlitigationandcomplex @R!   : transactionsordinarilyrequiremore  elaboratetreatmentthanmattersoflesser  !#  consequence.Similarly,alawyerwhoviolatesDR6101(A)(3)( alawyershallnot @!  " ! neglectalegalmatterentrustedtothelawyerwill p violateProposedRule1.1'sdutyto @"  #" providecompetentrepresentationasdefinedtoinclude thoroughnessandpreparation @1"  $# reasonablynecessaryfortherepresentation.)Neglectingamatterwouldalsoviolate @!  w% $ Rule1.3'srequirementthatthelawyeractwith reasonable  diligence.`&!%(#(# 0   ` c.TheTBACommitteeacknowledgesthatProposedRule1.1differsfromDR6 2(#' 101(A)(1)inthatitdoesspecificallyprecludealawyerfrom handlingamatterthatthe )k$( lawyerknowsorshouldknowthelawyerisnotcompetenttohandle.Alawyercannot *T%) violateRule1.1byundertakingacasethatlawyerisnotcompetenttohandle.Rather, *=&* Rule1.1willonlybeviolatedifthelawyer,havingundertakenacasethelawyerwasnot +&'+ competenttohandle,thereafterfailstoprovidecompetentrepresentation.Concurringin  thereasoningsetforthinComment[2],theCommitteebelievesthat,forpurposesof  discipline,thelawyershouldbejudgednotbywhatcompetenceheorsheisthoughtto  havewhenacaseisundertaken,butratherbythequalityoftherepresentationactually k providedtotheclientbyvirtueofthelawyerspreparationorassociationofanother T lawyer.Also,theTBACommitteedoesnotbelieveitmakessenseforalawyerwho =  competentlyrepresentedaclienttobeexposedtoariskofdisciplinebecausethelawyer & v wasnotcompetenttohandlethematterwhentherepresentationwasundertaken. _(#(#    ` d.TheProposedRuleaffordsthepublicgreaterprotectionthanDR6101(A)  1    becauseitpermitsdisciplineofalawyerwhodoesnotneglectamatter,butwho       nonethelessfailstoprovidecompetentrepresentationbecauseofadefectineitherthe     lawyersknowledgeorskillaswouldbereasonablynecessaryfortherepresentation.      n      f  g   @" PROPOSEDRULE1.2    @SCOPEOFTHEREPRESENTATIONANDTHEALLOCATIONOF    AUTHORITYBETWEENTHELAWYERANDCLIENT   toJ(a)Subjecttoparagraphs(c)and(d),alawyershallabidebyaclient'sdecisionsconcerningthe W objectivesoftherepresentationandmaytakesuchactiononbehalfoftheclientasisimpliedly @  authorizedtocarryouttherepresentationAlawyershallabidebyaclient'sdecisionwhetherto ) y settleamatter.Inacriminalcase,thelawyershallabidebytheclient'sdecisionastoapleato  b beentered,whethertowaivejurytrial,andwhethertheclientwilltestify.  K (b)Alawyer'srepresentationofaclient,includingrepresentationbyappointment,doesnot    constituteanendorsementoftheclient'spolitical,economic,socialormoralviewsoractivities.   (c)Alawyermaylimitthescopeofaclientsrepresentationifthelimitationisreasonableunder   thecircumstancesandtheclientgivesconsent,preferablyinwriting,afterconsultation. q  (d)Alawyershallnotcounselaclienttoengage,orassistaclient,inconductthatthelawyer C knowsorreasonablyshouldknowiscriminalorfraudulent,butalawyermaydiscussthelegal ,| consequencesofanyproposedcourseofconductwithaclientandmaycounselorassistaclient e tomakeagoodfaithefforttodeterminethevalidity,scope,meaningorapplicationofthelaw. N @' COMMENT       AllocationofAuthorityBetweenClientandLawyer    [1]Bothlawyerandclienthaveauthorityandresponsibilityintheobjectivesandmeans w ofrepresentation.Theclienthasultimateauthoritytodeterminethepurposestobeservedby ` legalrepresentation,withinthelimitsimposedbylawandthelawyer'sprofessionalobligations. I Also,thedecisionsspecifiedinparagraph(a),suchaswhethertosettleacivilmatter,mustbe 2 madebytheclient.Otherdecisionsmaybemadebythelawyerpursuanttothelawyersimplied k authoritytotakeactionnecessarytocarryouttherepresentation,subjecttothelawyersdutyto  T keeptheclientreasonablyinformedaboutthestatusoftherepresentation.SeeRule1.4.Aclear  = distinctionbetweenobjectivesandmeanssometimescannotbedrawn,andinmanycasesthe !&  clientlawyerrelationshippartakesofajointundertaking.Inquestionsofmeans,forexample, "! thelawyernormallywillassumeresponsibilityfortechnicalandlegaltacticalissues,butusually #" willdefertotheclientregardingsuchquestionsastheexpensetobeincurredandconcernfor $# thirdpersonswhomightbeadverselyaffected.Lawdefiningthelawyer'sscopeofauthorityin z% $ litigationvariesamongjurisdictions. c&!%   [2]Paragraph(a)recognizesthatclientsnormallydefertothespecialknowledgeand 3(#' skilloftheirlawyer.Atthesametime,alawyerisnotrequiredtopursueobjectivesoremploy )l$( meanssimplybecauseaclientmayinstructthelawyerdoso.Althoughalawyer,asanagent, *U%) normallymustabidebytheclientsinstructionswithrespecttotherepresentation,alawyermay *>&* alwaysrefusetoengageinconductthatthelawyerreasonablybelievestobeunlawfulor +''+ prohibitedbytheRulesofProfessionalConductandmaytakeactionthatthelawyerreasonably  believestoberequiredbylawortheRulesofProfessionalConduct.Also,ifalawyerhasa  fundamentaldisagreementwiththeclientabouttheclientsobjectivesorthemeanstobeusedto  accomplishthem,thelawyermaywithdrawfromtherepresentation.SeeRule1.16. k   [3]Communicationbetweenthelawyerandtheclientisnecessaryfortheclientto =  effectivelyparticipateindecisionsrelatingtoclientsrepresentation.Thelawyermust, & v therefore,keeptheclientreasonablyinformedaboutthelawyersactionsonbehalfoftheclient.  _ SeeRule1.4.  H   [4]Attheoutsetofarepresentation,theclientmayauthorizethelawyertotakeactionon    theclientsbehalfwithoutfurtherconsultation.Ordinarily,alawyermayrelyonsuchan   advanceauthorization.Theclientmay,however,revokesuchauthorityatanytime,anda   lawyermaynotrelyonanadvanceauthorizationiftherehasbeensuchamaterialchangeinthe   circumstancesknowntothelawyerthattheclientspriorauthorizationcannolongerberegarded n  asanadequatelyinformeddecision. W    [5]Inacaseinwhichtheclientappearstobesufferingmentaldisability,thelawyer's )y dutytoabidebytheclient'sdecisionsistobeguidedbyreferencetoRule1.14. b    IndependenceFromClient'sViewsorActivities 4 .    [6]Legalrepresentationshouldnotbebeingdeniedtopeoplewhoareunabletoafford  legalservices,orwhosecauseiscontroversialorthesubjectofpopulardisapproval.Bythesame  token,representingaclientdoesnotconstituteapprovaloftheclient'sviewsoractivities.     AgreementsLimitingtheScopeoftheRepresentation \ 0   [7]Thescopeofservicestobeprovidedbyalawyermaybelimitedbyagreementwith 0 theclientorbythetermsunderwhichthelawyer'sservicesaremadeavailabletotheclient. i Whenalawyerhasbeenretainedbyaninsurertorepresentaninsured,forexample,the  R representationmaybelimitedtomattersrelatedtotheinsurancecoverage.Alimited  ; representationmaybeappropriatebecausetheclienthaslimitedobjectivesforthe !$  representation.Inaddition,thetermsuponwhichrepresentationisundertakenmayexclude " ! specificmeansthatmightotherwisebeusedtoaccomplishtheclientsobjectives.Such #" limitationsmayexcludeactionsthattheclientthinksaretoocostlyorthatthelawyerregardsas $# repugnantorimprudent. x% $     [8]AlthoughthisRuleaffordsthelawyerandclientsubstantiallatitudetolimitthe J'"& representation,thelimitationmustbereasonableunderthecircumstances.If,forexample,a 3(#' clientsobjectiveislimitedtosecuringgeneralinformationaboutthelawtheclientneedsin )l$( ordertohandleacommonandtypicallyuncomplicatedlegalproblem,thelawyerandclientmay *U%) agreethatthelawyersserviceswillbelimitedtoabrieftelephoneconsultation.Sucha *>&* limitation,however,wouldnotbereasonableifthetimeallottedwasnotsufficienttoyield +''+ adviceuponwhichtheclientcouldrely.Althoughanagreementforalimitedrepresentationdoes  notexemptalawyerfromthedutytoprovidecompetentrepresentation,thelimitationisafactor  tobeconsideredwhendeterminingthelegalknowledge,skill,thoroughnessandpreparation  reasonablynecessaryfortherepresentation.SeeRule1.1. k   [9]Otheragreementsconcerningalawyersrepresentationofaclientmustaccordwith =  theRulesofProfessionalConductandotherlaw.See,e.g.,Rules1.1,1.8,and5.6. & v    Criminal,FraudulentandProhibitedTransactions  H  :   [10]Paragraph(d)prohibitsalawyerfromcounselingorassistingaclienttoengagein    conductthatthelawyerknowsorreasonablyshouldknowiscriminalorfraudulent.This   prohibition,however,doesnotprecludethelawyerfromgivinganhonestopinionaboutthe   actualconsequencesthatappearlikelytoresultfromaclient'sconduct.Nordoesthefactthata   clientusesadviceinacourseofactionthatiscriminalorfraudulentofitselfmakealawyera p  partytothecourseofaction.Thereisacriticaldistinctionbetweenpresentingananalysisof Y  legalaspectsofquestionableconductandrecommendingthemeansbywhichacrimeorfraud B mightbecommittedwithimpunity. +{   [11]Whentheclient'scourseofactionhasalreadybegunandiscontinuing,thelawyer's M responsibilityisespeciallydelicate.ThelawyermaybepermittedbutisnotrequiredbyRule1.6 6 torevealtheclient'swrongdoing.Inanycase,however,thelawyerisrequiredtoavoid  furtheringthepurpose,forexample,bysuggestinghowitmightbeconcealed.Alawyermaynot  continueassistingaclientinconductthatthelawyeroriginallysupposedwaslegallyproperbut  thendiscoversiscriminalorfraudulent.Thelawyermust,therefore,withdrawfromthe  representationoftheclientinthematter.SeeRule1.16(a). s   [12]Wheretheclientisafiduciary,thelawyermaybechargedwithspecialobligations E indealingswithabeneficiary. .~   [13]Paragraph(d)applieswhetherornotthedefraudedpartyisapartytothetransaction.  P Hence,alawyermustnotparticipateinashamtransaction;forexample,atransactionto  9 effectuatecriminalorfraudulentescapeoftaxliability.Paragraph(d)doesnotpreclude !"  undertakingacriminaldefenseincidenttoageneralretainerforlegalservicestoalawful " ! enterprise.Thelastclauseofparagraph(d)recognizesthatdeterminingthevalidityor #" interpretationofastatuteorregulationmayrequireacourseofactioninvolvingdisobedienceof $# thestatuteorregulationoroftheinterpretationplaceduponitbygovernmentalauthorities. v% $     [14]Ifalawyercomestoknoworreasonablyshouldknowthataclientexpects H'"& assistancenotpermittedbytheRulesofProfessionalConductorotherlaw,orifthelawyer 1(#' intendstoactcontrarytotheclientsinstructions,thelawyermustconsultwiththeclient )j$( regardingthelimitationsonthelawyersconduct.SeeRule1.4. *S%)    _DEFINITIONAL_ԀCROSSREFERENCES +%'+  ~F ReasonableSeeRule1.0(_i_)   ConsultationSeeRule1.0(c)   KnowsSeeRule1.0(f) k  ReasonablyShouldKnowSeeRule1.0(k) T  FraudulentSeeRule1.0(e) =     COMMITTEENOTES  ` 4H  ComparisonToCurrentTennesseeEthicsRules   3    ThereisnodirectcounterparttothisRuleintheTennesseeRules.     Paragraph(a):ThereisnodirectcounterparttoParagraph(a)intheTennesseeRules,but   DR7-101(A)(f  4f  )providesthatalawyer"shallnotintentionally...failtoseekthelawful q  objectivesofhisclientthroughreasonablyavailablemeanspermittedbylawandDR Z  7-101(B)(f  g 4f  )providesthatalawyermay,"wherepermissible,exercisehisprofessionaljudgment C towaiveorfailtoassertarightorpositionofhisclient."_EC_Ԁ7-7reads:"Incertainareasoflegal ,| representationnotaffectingthemeritsofthecauseorsubstantiallyprejudicingtherightsofa e client,alawyerisentitledtomakedecisionsonhisown.Butotherwisetheauthoritytomake N decisionsisexclusivelythatoftheclient...."_EC_Ԁ78alsostatesthat,"[g _i]f  g n_Ԁthefinalanalysis, 7 however,the...decisionwhethertoforegolegallyavailableobjectivesormethodsbecauseof   nonlegalfactorsisultimatelyfortheclient....      Paragraph(b):ThereisnocounterparttoParagraph(b)intheTennesseeRules.     Paragraph(c):ThereisnocounterparttoParagraph(c)intheTennesseeRules.DR ] 7-101(A)(g 4f  g ),however,providesthatalawyer"shallnotintentionally...failtoseekthelawful F objectivesofhisclientthroughreasonablyavailablemeanspermittedbylaw...,leaving / unaddressedtheextenttowhichlawyersandclientsmayagreethatthelawyerwillprovidea h limitedrepresentation.  Q    Paragraph(d): DR7-102(A)(7)morebroadlyprovidesthatalawyershallnot"f  g [_c]ounsel_f  g  !#  orassisthisclientinconductthatthelawyerknowstobeillegalorfraudulent." "!  ComparisonToABAModelRules  $# Ѐ  Paragraph(a):g Exceptforthesecondf  Ԁhalfofthefirstsentence,f  ԀProposedRule1.2(a) d&!% tracksABAf  ԀModelRule1.2(a)f  .g f  Thef  Ԁsecondhalfofthefirstsentenceing thef  g ԀModelRuleg Ԁrequires M'"& thelawyertoconsultwithclientaboutthemeanstobeusedtopursuetheclientsobjectivesf  . 6(#' TheCommitteehaschangedthissothatthedutytoconsultaboutmeanswillbeaddressedin )o$( Rule1.4asanaspectofthelawyersdutytof  g Ԁkeeptheclientreasonablyinformedaboutthestatus *X%) oftherepresentations.Also,theProposedRuleexpresslyg f  g recognizesthelawyersimplied *A&* authoritytotakeactiontocarryouttherepresentation,but,inrecognitionthatimpliedauthority +*'+ canberevoked,Comment[1]discussestheresolutionofdisagreementsbetweenlawyerand  clientaboutthemeanstobeusedtocarryouttherepresentation.2X XXX   Hf  g   Paragraph(b)isidenticaltoABAModelRule1.2(b). k Ѐ T   Paragraph(c):Paragraph(c)isrelatedtobutsignificantlymodifiesModelRule1.2(c) =  whichprovidesthat alawyermaylimittheobjectivesoftherepresentationiftheclientconsents & v afterconsultation.TheProposedRulemakesclearthatlawyersandclientsarefreetolimitthe  _ scopeofthelawyersrepresentationoftheclientsolongasthelimitedrepresentationf  is  H reasonableunderthecircumstances.f  g   1         Paragraph(d):Paragraph(d)isidenticaltoModelRule1.2(d)exceptthatwealso   requirethelawyertorefusetocounselorassisttheclientifthelawyer reasonablyshouldknow   thattheclientsconductiscriminalorfraudulent.     g TheCommitteehasmovedABAModelRule1.2(e)toComment[14]. W   ChangesMadeto1997CommitteePreliminaryDraftInResponsetoComments  )y B.` hp x (#XB    c   g TheCommitteesubstantiallyrevisedProposedRule1.2g Ԁsothatitwouldmoreclosely M tracktheABAModelRule. 6   TheCommitteedeletedParagraph(B)ofthePreliminaryDraft,whichread:  ?+ ` hp x (#X?   ` (B)Beforeorwithinareasonabletimeafteragreeingtorepresentaclientina    matter,alawyerwhohasnotregularlyrepresentedtheclientinsimilarmattersshall s   consultwiththeclientaboutthescopeandobjectivesoftherepresentationandthe \   allocationofdecision-makingauthoritybetweenthelawyerandclient. E B.` hp x (#XB  TheCommitteeconcludedthatsuchconsultation,whiledesirable,shouldnotbe  g mandatedunderpainofprofessionaldisciplinebecauseofthedifficultyofascertainingthe  P properextentoftheconsultationinaparticularcase.  9   Paragraph(a)replacesParagraph(C)inf  g ԀthePreliminaryDraftthatf  readasfollowsf  : " ! f  g   g (C)Unlessrequiredorpermittedtodootherwisebyparagraph(E)orbyan  $#   agreementwiththeclientpermittedbyparagraph(D),alawyer v% $ B.` hp x (#XB ?+` ` hp x (#X?(1)shallprovidesuchservicesaswouldreasonablybeexpectedbytheclient H'"& underthecircumstances;and 1(#'  B.` hp x (#` XB   ` (2)shallabidebytheinstructionsoftheclientwithrespecttotheobjectivesofthe *S%)    ` representationandthemeansbywhichtheyaretobepursued;and *<&*  X?+ ` hp x (#X? +%'+  X?+` ` hp x (#X?(3)shallconsultwiththeclientandabidebytheclient'sspecificinstructions,if  any,withrespecttotheobjectivesoftherepresentationandanyofthefollowing  actions:   B.` hp x (#` XB ?+ ` hp x (#X?(a)inacivilproceedingthefilingofacomplaint,theoffer,acceptance,or T rejectionofaproposalforsettlementofthematter,orthefilingofan =  appealfromanadversedecision,or & v  B.` hp x (# XB X<( hp x (#(#X<0 ` 0 ` (#` (#(b)inacriminalproceedingtheentryofaplea,theoffer,acceptanceor  H rejectionofaproposalwithrespecttothepleatobeenteredorsentenceto  1  beimposed,thewaiverofaconstitutionalrightortestimonialprivilegeof    theclient,orthefilingofanappealofaconvictionorsentence,or  (# (#  XB+` ` hp x (#(#  X(#B B+ ` hp x (#` ` X(#B(c)anyotheractionthatthelawyerreasonablybelieveswillsubjectthe   clienttoamaterialriskofcivilorcriminalliabilityorwillcause n  substantialharmtoanotherperson;and W  @Z B.` hp x (# XB ?+` ` hp x (#X?(4)intheabsenceofinstructionsfromtheclienttothecontrary,thelawyermay, )y withoutpriorconsultationwiththeclient,takeanyotheractionthelawyer b reasonablybelieveswillcontributetotheachievementoftheclientsobjectives. K  B.` hp x (#` XBf  g   f  TheCommitteeconcludedthatthespecificationofthescopeofarepresentationin  Paragraph(C)(1)wasunnecessaryandthattherequirementinParagraph(C)(2)thatthelawyer  abidebyclientinstructionswasilladvisedinlightofthevarietyofsituationsinwhichsucha  dutymightbeimplicatedandtheimportanceoflawyersretainingindependenceofprofessional  judgment.TheCommitteealsoconcludedthatthelistofdecisionsinParagraph(C)(3)thatmust q bemadebytheclientshouldbeconformedwithABAModelRule1.2(a). Z   Withrespecttodisagreementsbetweenthelawyerandtheclientastothemeanstobe ,| usedtoaccomplishtheclientsobjectives,thefinaldraftreflectstheCommitteesjudgmentthat e suchdisagreementsshouldberesolvedbythelawyerandtheclientwiththeclienthavingthe N righttodischargethelawyeriftheycannotreachagreementandthelawyerhavingasimilar  7 righttowithdrawfromtherepresentation(subject,ofcourse,tothepowerofthecourttodenya !   requestforpermissiontowithdrawwherewithdrawalwouldinterferewiththedue " ! administrationofjustice). #"   Paragraph(b)f  g ԀisidenticaltoParagraph(A)ofthePreliminaryDraft.Itwasmovedso t% $ thattheparagraphingintheTennesseerulewouldbethesameasintheABAModelRule. ]&!%   Paragraph(c)f  g f  g ԀreplacesParagraph(D)ofthePreliminaryDraft,whichread: /(#'  X?+ ` hp x (#X?(D)Afterconsultationbythelawyerwiththeclient,alawyerandclientmaybywritten *Q%) agreementlimitthescopeandobjectivesoftherepresentation,limitthemeansthelawyer *:&* willemployinrepresentingtheclient,orallocatetoeitherthelawyerorclientauthority +#'+ tomakedecisionswithrespecttotherepresentation,provided,however,thatnosuch  agreementshallbeeffectiveto   XB.` hp x (#XB ?+` ` hp x (#X?(1)conferuponthelawyerunrestrictedauthoritytoofferortoacceptorrejectan k offerofasettlementinacivilproceedingorapleaagreementinacriminal T prosecution,or =   ?+` ` hp x (#` X?(2)conferuponthelawyeranirrevocableauthoritytotakeactiononbehalfofthe  _ client,or  H l B.` hp x (#` XB ?+` ` hp x (#X?(3)conferuponthelawyerauthoritytotakeactioniftherehasbeenamaterial    changeincircumstancesrelatingtotheactionthatthelawyerhasreasonto   believewasnotanticipatedbytheclientatthetimethelawyerwasauthorizedto   taketheaction,or    X<(` ` hp x (#` X< ` (4)toconferuponthelawyertheauthoritytotakeanactioniflawortherulesofa W   ` tribunalrequirethattheactionbetakenpersonallyorbespecificallyapprovedby @  ` theclient. )y  XB.` hp x (#` ` XBӀ b f  g f    g TheCommitteeconcludedthattheeffectivenessofadelegationofauthoritybytheclient K tothelawyerwasmoreappropriatelyaddressedintheComments.TheCommitteealso 4 concluded,however,thatagreementslimitingthescopeofarepresentationshouldonlybe  permittedifreasonableunderthecircumstances.    Paragraph(d)replacesParagraph(E)ofthePreliminaryDraftthatread:   X?+ ` hp x (#X?(E)Notwithstandinganyagreementorinstructionstothecontrary,alawyer Z  XB.` hp x (#XB ?+` ` hp x (#X?(1)shallnotcounseltheclienttoengageinorassisttheclientinconduct,or ,| otherwisetakeactiononbehalfoftheclientwhichthelawyerknowsor e reasonablyshouldknowisillegal,fraudulent,orprohibitedbytheRulesof N ProfessionalConduct,exceptthatthelawyermaydiscussthelegalconsequences  7 ofanyproposedcourseofconductwithaclientandmaycounselorassistaclient !   tomakeagoodfaithefforttodeterminethevalidity,scope,meaningor " ! applicationofthelaw;and #"    ?+` ` hp x (#` X?(2)mayrefusetotakeanyactionthelawyerbelievesisillegal,fraudulent,or t% $ prohibitedbytheRulesofProfessionalConduct;and ]&!%  B.` hp x (#` XB ?+` ` hp x (#X?(3)mayrefusetotakeanyactionthelawyerreasonablybelievesis /(#' unprofessional;and )h$(  B.` hp x (#` XB ?+` ` hp x (#X?(4)maytakeanyactionthatlaw,theRulesofProfessionalConduct,ortheorder *:&* ofatribunalrequiresthelawyertotake;and +#'+  B.` hp x (#` XB ?+` ` hp x (#X?(5)maytakeanyactionwithouttheconsentoftheclientwhenlaworanorderof  atribunalrequiressuchimmediateactionthatthelawyerreasonablybelievesthat  theconsentoftheclientcannotbeobtainedpriortotakingaction. k  B.` hp x (#` XB X?+ ` hp x (#X?BecauseProposedRule1.2nolongerrequiresthelawyertoabidebyclientinstructions =   XB.` hp x (#XBaboutthemeanstobeusedtoaccomplishtheclientsobjectives,theCommitteeconcludedthat & v paragraphs(2)through(5)-whichwereexceptionstothedutytoabidebyclientinstructions-  _ werenolongernecessaryandthatthepointmadebytheseparagraphscouldbeincorporatedinto  H theComment.  1  #X XX2X !W# CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges   Made 2X XXX    #X XX2X #  TheAttorneyGeneralhasvoicedconcernabouttheinconsistencybetweenRule1.2(a) p  andthestatutoryauthorityoftheAttorneyGeneralpursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.86 Y  109(b)(1)and2013103.TheCommitteebelievesthatithasadequatelyaddressedthisproblem B inScope,Paragraph[4]. +{   d 2X XXX f  g W    PROPOSEDRULE1.3  DILIGENCE q   e Alawyershallactwithreasonablediligenceandpromptnessinrepresentingaclient. W    COMMENT  ) y ]  [1]Alawyershouldpursueamatteronbehalfofaclientdespiteopposition,obstruction  L orpersonalinconveniencetothelawyer,andmaytakewhateverlawfulandethicalmeasuresare  5  requiredtovindicateaclient'scauseorendeavor.Alawyershouldactwithcommitmentand    dedicationtotheinterestsoftheclientandwithzealinadvocacyupontheclient'sbehalf.   However,alawyerisnotboundtopressforeveryadvantagethatmightberealizedforaclient.   Unlessinstructedbyaclienttothecontrary,alawyerhasprofessionaldiscretionindetermining   themeansbywhichamattershouldbepursued,andthelawyerisnotrequiredtoabideby r  unreasonableclientinstructions.SeeRule1.2.Alawyer'sworkloadshouldbecontrolledsothat [  eachmattercanbehandledadequately. D   [2]Perhapsnoprofessionalshortcomingismorewidelyresentedthanprocrastination.A f client'sinterestsoftencanbeadverselyaffectedbythepassageoftimeorthechangeof O conditions;inextremeinstances,aswhenalawyeroverlooksastatuteoflimitations,theclient's 8 legalpositionmaybedestroyed.Evenwhentheclient'sinterestsarenotaffectedinsubstance, ! however,unreasonabledelaycancauseaclientneedlessanxietyandundermineconfidencein   thelawyer'strustworthiness.    [3]UnlesstherelationshipisterminatedasprovidedinRule1.16,alawyershouldcarry u throughtoconclusionallmattersundertakenforaclient.Ifalawyer'semploymentislimitedtoa ^ specificmatter,therelationshipterminateswhenthematterhasbeenresolved.Ifalawyerhas G servedaclientoverasubstantialperiodinavarietyofmatters,theclientsometimesmayassume 0 thatthelawyerwillcontinuetoserveonacontinuingbasisunlessthelawyergivesnoticeof i withdrawal.Doubtaboutwhetheraclientlawyerrelationshipstillexistsshouldbeclarifiedby  R thelawyer,preferablyinwriting,sothattheclientwillnotmistakenlysupposethelawyeris  ; lookingaftertheclient'saffairswhenthelawyerhasceasedtodoso.Forexample,ifalawyer !$  hashandledajudicialoradministrativeproceedingthatproducedaresultadversetotheclient " ! buthasnotbeenspecificallyinstructedconcerningpursuitofanappeal,thelawyershouldadvise #" theclientofthepossibilityofappealbeforerelinquishingresponsibilityforthematter. $#    _DEFINITIONAL_ԀCROSSREFERENCES a&!%   ReasonableSeeRule1.0(_i_) 4(#'    COMMITTEENOTES *W%) ȜComparisonToCurrentTennesseeEthicsRules  ++'+ Ї  TheProposedRuleisidenticaltoDR710f  1f  g (A)(1).DR6101(A)(3)alsorequiresthata  lawyernot"neglectamatterentrustedtohim."   ComparisonToABAModelRules  l   TheProposedRuleisidenticaltoABAModelRule1.3. A   ChangesMadeto1997CommitteePreliminaryDraftInResponsetoComments   d   Nochanges.  9   #X XX2X #CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges   Made2X XXX     #X XX2X ߟ#  1.TheBoardofProfessionalResponsibilityhasaskedtheCourttoaddasecondsentence x  totheRulethatwouldstate: Alawyershallnotneglectalegalmatterentrustedtothelawyer. a  ThiswordingcomesfromDR6103(A)(3).TheCommitteebelievesthatthisadditionis J unnecessarybecause___a_ԀlawyerwhoneglectsamatterhasviolatedRule1.3byfailingtoprovide 3 diligentandpromptrepresentation.If,however,theCourtbelievesthereshouldbeaspecific l referencetoneglect,theCommitteerecommendsthatthispointbemadeinanewfirstsentence U toComment[1],ratherthanintheRuletext,soastomaintaintheconsistencyofthisRulewith > theABAModelRule,whichhasbeenwidelyadopted. '   2.TheAttorneyGeneralhasvoicedaconcernaboutthatportionofComment[1]that  referstotherightoftheclienttodeterminethemeansbywhichamattershouldbepursued.Such  arightissaidtobeinconsistentwiththeAttorneyGeneralsresponsibilitytomakedecisions { aboutlitigatedmattersintheinterestsoftheStateofTennessee,notwithstandingthedictatesor d wishesofagencyofficials.AsexplainedintheCommitteesresponsetotheAttorneyGenerals M concernsaboutRule1.2,whichspecificallyaddressestheallocationofauthoritybetweenlawyer 6 andclient,theCommitteebelievesthattheseconcernsareadequatelyaddressedinScope, o Paragraph[4].2X XXX  f  g   X    PROPOSEDRULE1.4  COMMUNICATION    (a)Alawyershallkeepaclientreasonablyinformedaboutthestatusofamatterandcomply n withreasonablerequestsforinformationwithinareasonabletime. W (b)Alawyershallexplainamattertotheextentreasonablynecessarytopermittheclientto ) y makeinformeddecisionsregardingtherepresentation.  b    COMMENT   5    KeepingtheClientReasonablyInformed    ީ  [1]Reasonablecommunicationbetweenthelawyerandtheclientisnecessaryforthe   clienttoeffectivelyparticipateintherepresentation.Whenadecisionabouttherepresentation t  mustbemadebytheclient,thelawyermustconsultwithandsecuretheclientsconsentpriorto ]  takingaction.Thus,alawyerwhoreceivesfromopposingcounselanofferofsettlementina F civilcontroversyoraprofferedpleabargaininacriminalcaseshouldpromptlyinformtheclient / ofitssubstance,unlesspriordiscussionswiththeclienthaveleftitclearthattheproposalwould h beunacceptable.Withrespecttothedecisionsforwhichtheclientspriorconsentisnot Q requiredbyRule1.2,thelawyersresponsibilityistokeeptheclientreasonablyinformed.In : somesituationsdependingonboththeimportanceoftheactionunderconsiderationandthe # feasibilityofconsultingwiththeclientthisdutywillrequireconsultationpriortotakingthe   action.Inothercircumstances,suchasduringatrialwhenanimmediatedecisionmustbemade,  practicalexigencymayalsorequirealawyertoactforaclientwithoutpriorconsultation.In  suchcases,andinothersituationsinwhichtheclienthasimpliedlyorexpresslydelegated w authoritytothelawyertotakeactionwithoutpriorconsultation,thelawyermustnonethelessact ` reasonablytokeeptheclientinformedofactionsthelawyerhastakenontheclientsbehalf. I   ExplainingMatters  i &  [2]Theclientshouldhavesufficientinformationtoparticipateintelligentlyindecisions  < concerningtheobjectivesoftherepresentationandthemeansbywhichtheyaretobepursued, !%  totheextenttheclientiswillingandabletodoso.Forexample,alawyernegotiatingonbehalf "! ofaclientshouldprovidetheclientwithfactsrelevanttothematter,informtheclientof #" communicationsfromanotherpartyandtakeotherreasonablestepsthatpermittheclientto $# makeadecisionregardingaseriousofferfromanotherparty. y% $   [3]Ordinarily,theinformationtobeprovidedisthatappropriateforaclientwhoisa K'"& comprehendingandresponsibleadult.However,fullyinformingtheclientaccordingtothis 4(#' standardmaybeimpracticable,forexample,wheretheclientisachildorsuffersfrommental )m$( disability.SeeRule1.14.Whentheclientisanorganizationorgroup,itisoftenimpossibleor *V%) inappropriatetoinformeveryoneofitsmembersaboutitslegalaffairs;ordinarily,thelawyer *?&* shouldaddresscommunicationstotheappropriateofficialsoftheorganization.SeeRule1.13. +('+ _Wheremanyroutinemattersareinvolved,asystemoflimitedoroccasionalreportingmaybe  arrangedwiththeclient.Practicalexigencymayalsorequirealawyertoactforaclientwithout  priorconsultation.     WithholdingInformation  T   [4]Insomecircumstances,alawyermaybejustifiedindelayingtransmissionof ' w informationwhentheclientwouldbelikelytoreactimprudentlytoanimmediate  ` communication.Thus,alawyermightwithholdapsychiatricdiagnosisofaclientwhenthe  I examiningpsychiatristindicatesthatdisclosurewouldharmtheclient.Alawyermaynot  2  withholdinformationtoservethelawyer'sowninterestorconvenience.Rulesorcourtorders    governinglitigationmayprovidethatinformationsuppliedtoalawyermaynotbedisclosedto   theclient.Rule3.4(c)directscompliancewithsuchrulesororders.      _DEFINITIONAL_ԀCROSSREFERENCES o  5 Reasonableand ReasonablySeeRule1.0(_i_) C    COMMITTEENOTES e   ComparisonToCurrentTennesseeEthicsRules  8   TheproposalisidenticaltoDR7101(A)(2)and(3)f  ,exceptthat withinareasonable   timeisadded.f  f     ComparisonToABAModelRules  x   TheproposalisidenticaltoModelRule1.4f  ,exceptthat withinareasonabletimeis K addedf  g .f  g  4  ChangesMadeto1997CommitteePreliminaryDraftInResponsetoComments   V   ToconformtheproposaltothecurrentTennesseeRulesandABAModelRule1.4,the !)  followingparagraphscontainedinthePreliminaryDraftweredeleted: "! W  (A)Beforeorwithinareasonabletimeafteragreeingtorepresentaclientina $#   matter, ` alawyershallconsultwiththeclientabouttherepresentationasmaybe }% $   requiredbytheRulesofProfessionalConduct.  f&!%   (B)Duringthecourseoftherepresentation,alawyershall ;(#'    ` (2)initiateaconsultationwiththeclientwithinareasonabletime  *]%)  _ *F&*    `  (a)priortotakinganyactionrequiringthespecificconsentofthe      `  client;or  0  0`   0 ` ` (b)afterthelawyercomestoknowthattheclientexpects k assistancenotpermittedbytheRulesofProfessionalConductor T otherlaworthatthelawyerisotherwiseunwillingtoprovide.=     TheCommitteeconcludedthatparagraph(A)wasunnecessaryandthatthematterscoveredin  ` Paragraph(B)(2)areadequatelyaddressedinRule1.2.  I #X XX2X C# CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges    Made 2X XXX    f    Nocommentorchanges.f  g    Ѐ1     .~ 0   PROPOSEDRULE1.5  FEES  p | (a)Alawyer'sfeeandchargesforf  g f  g expensesf  g Ԁshallbereasonable.Thefactorstobeconsideredin n determiningthereasonablenessofafeeincludethefollowing: W   (1)thetimeandlaborrequired,thenoveltyanddifficultyofthequestionsinvolved,and ) y   theskillrequisitetoperformthelegalserviceproperly;  b   (2)thelikelihood,ifapparenttotheclient,thattheacceptanceoftheparticular   4    employmentwillprecludeotheremploymentbythelawyer;      (3)thefeecustomarilychargedinthelocalityforsimilarlegalservices;     (4)theamountinvolvedandtheresultsobtained; q    (5)thetimelimitationsimposedbytheclientorbythecircumstances; C   (6)thenatureandlengthoftheprofessionalrelationshipwiththeclient; e   (7)theexperience,reputation,andabilityofthelawyerorlawyersperformingthe 7   services;       (8)whetherthefeeisfixedorcontingent;    (9)prioradvertisementsorstatementsbythelawyerwithrespecttothefeesthelawyer t   charges;and ]    `   (10)whetherthefeeagreementisinwriting. /  (b)Whenthelawyerhasnotregularlyrepresentedtheclient,thebasisorrateofthefeeshallbe  R communicatedtotheclient,preferablyinwriting,beforeorwithinareasonabletimeafter  ; commencingtherepresentation. !$  (c)Afeemaybecontingentontheoutcomeofthematterforwhichtheserviceisrendered, #" exceptinamatterinwhichacontingentfeeisprohibitedbyparagraph(d)orotherlaw.A $# contingentfeeagreementshallbeinwritingandsignedbytheclientandshallstatethemethod x% $ bywhichthefeeistobedetermined,includingthepercentageorpercentagesthatshallaccrueto a&!% thelawyerintheeventofsettlement,trialorappeal,litigationandotherexpensestobededucted J'"& fromtherecovery,andwhethersuchexpensesaretobedeductedbeforeorafterthecontingent 3(#' feeiscalculated.Uponconclusionofacontingentfeematter,thelawyershallprovidetheclient )l$( withawrittenstatementstatingtheoutcomeofthematterandwhethertherewasarecovery,and *U%) showingtheremittance,ifany,totheclientandthemethodofitsdetermination. *>&*  +''+ (d)Alawyershallnotenterintoanarrangementfor,charge,orcollect:  0   (#(# 0  (1)anyfeeinadomesticrelationsmatter,thepaymentoramountofwhichiscontingent  uponthesecuringofadivorceortheawardofcustodialrights,orupontheamountof k alimonyorsupport,orthevalueofapropertydivisionorsettlement,unlessthematter T relatessolelytothecollectionof_arrearages_Ԁinalimonyorchildsupportorthe =  enforcementofanorderdividingthemaritalestateandthefeearrangementisdisclosed & v tothecourt;or _(#(# ̀  (2)acontingentfeeforrepresentingadefendantinacriminalcase.  1  (e)Adivisionoffeebetweenlawyerswhoarenotinthesamefirmmaybemadeonlyif:   0   (#(#   (1)thedivisionisinproportiontotheservicesperformedbyeachlawyeror,bywritten     consentoftheclient,eachlawyerassumesjointresponsibilityforthe x   n    representation;and W  0   (#(#   (2)theclientisadvisedofanddoesnotobjecttotheparticipationofallthelawyers )y   involved;and b     (3)thetotalfeeisreasonable. 4    COMMENT  BasisorRateofFee     [1]Whenthelawyerhasregularlyrepresentedaclient,thereordinarilywillhaveevolved ] anunderstandingconcerningthebasisorrateofthefee.Inanewclient-lawyerrelationship, F however,anunderstandingastothefeeshouldbepromptlyestablished.Itisnotnecessaryto / reciteallthefactorsthatunderliethebasisofthefee,butonlythosethataredirectlyinvolvedin h itscomputation.Itissufficient,forexample,tostatethatthebasicrateisanhourlychargeora  Q fixedamountoranestimatedamount,ortoidentifythefactorsthatmaybetakenintoaccountin  : finallyfixingthefee.Whendevelopmentsoccurduringtherepresentationthatrenderanearlier !#  estimatesubstantiallyinaccurate,arevisedestimateshouldbeprovidedtotheclient.Awritten " ! statementconcerningthefeereducesthepossibilityofmisunderstanding.Furnishingtheclient #" withasimplememorandumoracopyofthelawyer'scustomaryfeescheduleissufficientifthe $# basisorrateofthefeeissetforth. w% $    @ TermsofPayment  I'"&   [2]Alawyermayrequireadvancepaymentofafee,butisobligedtoreturnanyunearned )l$( portion.SeeRule1.16(d).Alawyermayacceptpropertyinpaymentforservices,suchasan *U%) ownershipinterestinanenterprise,providingthisdoesnotinvolveacquisitionofaproprietary *>&* interestinthecauseofactionorsubjectmatterofthelitigationcontrarytoRule1.8(j).However, +''+ afeepaidinpropertyinsteadofmoneymaybesubjecttospecialscrutinybecauseitinvolves  questionsconcerningboththevalueoftheservicesandthelawyer'sspecialknowledgeofthe  valueoftheproperty.Ifthepropertybelongstotheclient,thelawyerwillalsohavetocomply  withtherequirementsofRule1.8(a). k   [3]Anagreementmaynotbemadewhosetermsmightinducethelawyerimproperlyto =  curtailservicesfortheclientorperformtheminawaycontrarytotheclient'sinterest.For & v example,alawyershouldnotenterintoanagreementwherebyservicesaretobeprovidedonly  _ uptoastatedamountwhenitisforeseeablethatmoreextensiveservicesprobablywillbe  H required,unlessthesituationisadequatelyexplainedtotheclient.Otherwise,theclientmight  1  havetobargainforfurtherassistanceinthemidstofaproceedingortransaction.However,itis    propertodefinetheextentofservicesinlightoftheclient'sabilitytopay.Alawyershouldnot   exploitafeearrangementbasedprimarilyonhourlychargesbyusingwastefulprocedures.When   thereisdoubtwhetheracontingentfeeisconsistentwiththeclient'sbestinterest,thelawyer   shouldoffertheclientalternativebasesforthefeeandexplaintheirimplications.Applicablelaw n  mayimposelimitationsoncontingentfees,suchasaceilingonthepercentage. W    [4]Insomecircumstances,otherlawmayregulatethefeesandexpenseschargedby )y lawyers.Forexample,Tennesseelawregulatescontingentfeesinmedicalmalpracticecases. b See,e.g.,Tenn.CodeAnn.2926120(1980).Inthesecircumstances,chargingunlawfulfees K orexpensesmaybeconsideredunreasonableundersection(a)ofthisRulesandmayviolate 4 Rule8.4orotherrules.See,e.g.,Rule8.4(d)(prohibitingconductprejudicialtothe  administrationofjustice).     DivisionofFee   <  [5]Adivisionoffeeisasinglebillingtoaclientcoveringthefeeoftwoormorelawyers [ whoarenotinthesamefirm.Adivisionoffeefacilitatesassociationofmorethanonelawyerin D amatterinwhichneitheralonecouldservetheclientaswell,andmostoftenisusedwhenthe -} feeiscontingentandthedivisionisbetweenareferringlawyerandatrialspecialist.Paragraph f (e)permitsthelawyerstodivideafeeoneitherthebasisoftheproportionofservicesthey O renderorbyagreementbetweentheparticipatinglawyersifallassumeresponsibilityforthe  8 representationasawholeandtheclientisadvisedanddoesnotobject.Itdoesnotrequire !!  disclosuretotheclientofthesharethateachlawyeristoreceive.Jointresponsibilityforthe " ! representationentailstheobligationsstatedinRule5.1forpurposesofthematterinvolved. #"    DisputesOverFees  u% $   [6]Ifaprocedurehasbeenestablishedforresolutionoffeedisputes,suchasan H'"& arbitrationormediationprocedureestablishedbythebar,thelawyershouldconscientiously 1(#' considersubmittingtoit.Lawmayprescribeaprocedurefordeterminingalawyer'sfee,for )j$( example,inrepresentationofanexecutororadministrator,aclassorapersonentitledtoa *S%) reasonablefeeaspartofthemeasureofdamages.Thelawyerentitledtosuchafeeandalawyer *<&* representinganotherpartyconcernedwiththefeeshouldcomplywiththeprescribedprocedure. +%'+ Ї   _DEFINITIONAL_ԀCROSSREFERENCES    FirmSeeRf  g f  g f  g ule1.0(d)   Reasonableand ReasonablenessSeeRule1.0(_i_) l    COMMITTEENOTES >    ComparisonToCurrentTennesseeEthicsRules   a   Paragraph(a):DR2-106(A)providesthatalawyer"shallnotenterintoanagreement  4  for,charge,orcollectanillegalorclearlyexcessivefee."DR2-106(B)providesthatafeeis    "clearlyexcessivewhen,afterareviewofthefacts,alawyerofordinaryprudencewouldbeleft   withadefiniteandfirmconvictionthatthefeeisinexcessofareasonablefee."_EC_Ԁ2-17states   thatalawyer"shouldnotchargemorethanareasonablefee...."Therequirementthatcharges   forexpenses,aswellasfees,bereasonableisnew.WiththeexceptionofSubparagraphs(9)and q  (10),thefactorstobeconsideredindeterminingthereasonablenessofthefeesandchargesfor Z  costsaresubstantiallyidenticaltothoselistedinDR2-106(B). C   Paragraph(b):ThereisnocounterparttoParagraph(b)intheTennesseeRules._EC_Ԁ2-19 e statesthatitis"usuallybeneficialtoreducetowritingtheunderstandingofthepartiesregarding N thefee,particularlywhenitiscontingent." 7 ̀  Paragraph(c):ThereisnocounterparttoParagraph(c)intheTennesseeRules._EC_Ԁ2-20   providesthat"[g c]ontingentf  g Ԁfeearrangementsincivilcaseshavelongbeencommonlyacceptedin  theUnitedStates,"butthat"alawyergenerallyshoulddeclinetoacceptemploymentona  contingentfeebasisbyonewhoisabletopayareasonablefixedfee...." t   Paragraph(d)(1):ThereisnocomparableprovisionintheDisciplinaryRules,but_EC_ F 2-20providesthat"contingentfeearrangementsindomesticrelationscasesarerarelyjustified.'' / TheCommitteesproposalwithrespecttocontingentfeesindomesticrelationsmatterstracks h butisnotidenticaltotheapproachtakeninB.` hp x (#XBHallv.Davis,slipop.,No.  Q 01-A-01-9404-CV-00146,1994Tenn.App.LEXIS534(Tenn.Ct.App.,MiddleSection,Sept.  : 21,1994),andAlexanderv._Inman_,slipop.,No.01A01-9605-CH-00215,1996Tenn.App. !#  LEXIS801(Tenn.Ct.App.,MiddleSection,Dec.11,1996),reversedonothergrounds,974 " ! S.W.2d689(Tenn.1998).Anoticeabledifferenceisthatwehavedispensedwitharequirement #" ofpriorjudicialapproval.TheCommitteebelievesthatnotificationisasufficientsafeguard. $# __  Paragraph(d)(2):DR2-106(C)morebroadlyprohibits"acontingentfeeinacriminal `&!% case." I'"&   Paragraph(e):DR2-107(A)permitsdivisionoffeesonlyif:"(1)Theclientconsentsto )k$( employmentoftheotherlawyerafterafulldisclosurethatadivisionoffeeswillbemade.(2) *T%) Thedivisionisinproportiontotheservicesperformedandresponsibilityassumedbyeach.(3) *=&* Thetotalfeedoesnotexceedclearlyreasonablecompensation...."Paragraph(e)permits +&'+ divisionwithoutregardtotheservicesrenderedbyeachlawyeriftheyassumejoint  responsibilityfortherepresentation.   ComparisonToABAModelRules  l   Paragraph(a):TheproposalisidenticaltoABAModelRule1.5(a)exceptforthe ?  additiontothereferenceto chargesforexpensesandsubparagraphs(9)and(10). ( x   Paragraph(b):TheproposalisidenticaltoABAModelRule1.5(b).  J ̀  Paragraph(c):Exceptforaminoreditorialchangeinthelastsentence,theproposalis    substantivelyidenticaltoABAModelRule1.5(c).       Paragraph(d)(1):TheproposaldiffersfromABAModelRule1.5(d)(1)whichflatly   prohibitscharging anyfeeinadomesticrelationsmatter,thepaymentoramountofwhichis p  contingentuponthesecuringofadivorceorupontheamountofalimonyorsupport,orproperty Y  settlementinlieuthereof. B Ѐ  Paragraph(d)(2):TheproposalisidenticaltoABAModelRule1.5(d)(2). d   Paragraph(e):TheproposalisidenticaltoABAModelRule1.5(e). 6  ChangesMadeto1997CommitteePreliminaryDraftInResponsetoComments      Paragraph(A):TheCommitteedeletedaParagraph(A)(2)thatcreateda_rebuttable_  presumptionofreasonablenesswhenaknowledgeableclientexecutedawrittenfeeagreement: u   Afeedeterminedinaccordancewithawrittenagreementsignedbya x  G   knowledgeableclientafterconsultationwiththelawyeraboutthefeeand x  0   reasonablealternativefeearrangementsshallbepresumedreasonableunlessthe i   lawyerhadreasontobelievethattheclientdidnotunderstandthetermsofthe  R   agreementwhenitwassigned.Aknowledgeableclientis  ; 0  0`   (a)aclientwhobyvirtueofhisorherknowledgeaboutandprior " ! experiencewithlawyersandlegalmatterscanberegardedascapable, #" afterconsultationwiththelawyer,ofmakingreasonablejudgmentsabout $# therelativeadvantagesanddisadvantagesofthefeeagreement,orx% $` `  0  0`   (b)aclientrepresentedbyanagentwhobyvirtueofhisorherknowledge J'"& aboutandpriorexperiencewithlawyersandlegalmatterscanberegarded 3(#' ascapable,afterconsultationwiththelawyer,ofmakingreasonable )l$( judgmentsabouttherelativeadvantagesanddisadvantagesofthe *U%) agreement.*>&*` `   +''+ _[TheCommitteeconcludedthatthisnovelprovisionwasunnecessarybecausethefactorstobe  consideredindeterminingthereasonablenessofafeearesufficientlyflexibletopermit  considerationofthefactthataknowledgeableclientagreedtothefeeinwriting.    Paragraph(D)(1)(6):TheCommitteedeletedfromParagraph(g Df  g )(1f  )(bf  g )therequirement T thatalawyermustsecurepriorjudicialapprovalofacontingentfeetochargedinadomestic =  relationsmatter.TheCommitteethoughtthatnotificationofthetribunal,coupledwiththe & v generalprohibitionagainstchargingunreasonablefees,affordsclientssufficientprotection  _ againstthemisuseofcontingentfeesinthiscontext.  H   Comment[4]wasaddedtoalertlawyerstostatutoryrestrictionsoncontingentfees.     #X XX2X ь#CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges   Made2X XXX     #X XX2X ѫ#  1.Inparagraph(a),theCommitteehasreplaced costswith expenses,becausecosts Z  mightbetoonarrowlyunderstoodorconstruedtomeancourtcosts,andlawyersfrequentlyincur C expensesotherthancourtcosts.Thereferencetoexpensesisbroadenoughtoincludeall ,| expendituresbyalawyerincurredonbehalfofaspecificclient. e   2.TheBoardofProfessionalResponsibilityhasaskedtheCourttoaddaneleventhfactor 7 tobeconsideredindeterminingwhetheralawyersfeeisreasonable: whetheralawyerof   ordinaryprudencewouldbeleftwithafirmanddefiniteconvictionthatthefeeisnotinexcess   ofareasonablefee.ThisisanegativeformulationofthecurrentstandardinDR2106(B),  whichservesasadefinitionofaclearlyexcessivefeeprohibitedbyDR2106(A).The  Committeeisopposedtothischangebecausethisreferencedoesnotdescribeafactortobe t consideredindeterminingwhetherafeeisreasonable,butratherisaspecificationofhowcertain ] thelawyermustbethatthefeeisreasonable,afterconsiderationofthosefactors.Assuchit F introducesnewandundefinedterminologythatdoesnotmeshwiththeterminologyconsistently / employedthroughouttheRules.TheCommitteesproposalrequiresthatalawyersfeefall h withintherangeoffeesthatwouldbechargedbyreasonablyprudentandcompetentlawyers  Q underthecircumstances.SeeRule1.0(_i_).Anaddedreferenceto afirmanddefiniteconviction  : thatthefeeisnotinexcessofareasonablenessfeewillonlyconfusetheinquiry. !#    3.TheTennesseeTrialLawyersAssociationaskedtheCommitteetoreplacethe #" requirementthatalawyersfeebe reasonablewithalessrestrictiveprohibitionagainst $# charging aclearlyexcessivefee.Asnotedbythe_TTLA_,DR2106(A)currentlyprovides w% $ thatalawyershallnotchargeaclearlyexcessivefee,whichisthendefinedinDR2106(B)in `&!% termsofwhetheralawyerofordinaryprudencewouldbeleftwithadefiniteandfirmconviction I'"& thatthefeeexceedsareasonablefee.Fortheretobesuchadefiniteandfirmconviction,then, 2(#' thefeewouldhavetobeconsiderablywellinexcessofareasonablefee.Particularlyconcerned )k$( aboutthedifficultyofdeterminingthereasonablenessofcontingentfees,the_TTLA_Ԁarguedthat *T%) lawyersshouldbeaffordedmoreleewayinchargingfortheirservicesthanisaffordedbythe *=&* proposedrequirementthatfeesbereasonable.Intheend,however,theCommittee_was +&'+ persuadedthatthepublic,manyofwhomarenotwellinformedaboutlawyerfeepractices,need  thegreaterprotectionaffordedbyamorestraightforwardrequirementthatalawyersfeebe  reasonable.2X XXX    #X XX2X я#2X XXX f  g  k    PROPOSEDRULE1.6  CONFIDENTIALITY r>   2   (a)Alawyershallnotrevealinformationrelatingtorepresentationofaclientunlesstheclient m consentsafterconsultation,exceptthatthelawyermaymakesuchdisclosuresasareimpliedly V authorizedbytheclientinorderforthelawyertocarryouttherepresentation. ?  Ѐ   ( x (b)Alawyermayrevealinformationrelatingtotherepresentationofaclienttotheextentthe  a lawyerreasonablybelievesdisclosureisnecessary:  J 0   (#(#   (1)topreventreasonablycertaindeathorsubstantialbodilyharm;      (2)topreventtheclientoranotherpersonfromcommittingacrime,unlessdisclosureis     prohibitedorrestrictedbyRule3.3;     (3)torectifyormitigatesubstantialinjurytothefinancialinterestsorpropertyofanother Y    resultingfromtheclientscommissionofacrimeorfraudinfurtheranceofwhichthe B   clienthasusedthelawyersservicesf  g ,unlessdisclosureisprohibitedorrestrictedbyRule#X XX2X #2X XXX  +{   3.3;#X XX2X %#2X XXX  d #X XX2X K&#2X XXX   (4)tosecurelegaladviceaboutthelawyerscompliancewiththeseRules;or 6   (5)toestablishaclaimordefenseonbehalfofthelawyerinacontroversybetweenthe    lawyerandtheclient,toestablishadefensetoacriminalchargeorcivilclaimagainstthe    lawyerbaseduponconductinwhichtheclientwasinvolved,ortorespondtoallegations    inanyproceedingconcerningthelawyer'srepresentationoftheclient. s (c)Alawyershallrevealinformationrelatingtotherepresentationofaclienttotheextentthe E lawyerreasonablybelievesdisclosureisnecessary: .~   (1)tocomplywithanorderofatribunalrequiringdisclosurebutonlyiforderedtodoso  P   bythetribunalafterthelawyerhasassertedonbehalfoftheclientallnonfrivolous  9   claimsthattheinformationsoughtbythetribunalisprotectedagainstdisclosurebythe !"    attorneyclientprivilegeorotherapplicablelaw. p    " !   (2)tocomplywithRules3.3,4.1,orotherlaw. $#    COMMENT _&!%  ,= XXdXXd=  [1]ThisRulegovernsthedisclosurebyalawyerofinformationrelatingtothe 2(#' representationofaclientduringthelawyersrepresentationoftheclient.SeeRule1.8(b)with )k$( respecttotheuseofsuchinformationtothedisadvantageoftheclient.SeeRule1.9(c)with *T%) respecttodisclosureandadverseuseofinformationrelatingtotherepresentationofaformer *=&* client. +&'+ Ї  [2]Theobservanceoftheethicalobligationofalawyertoholdinviolateconfidential  informationoftheclientnotonlyfacilitatesthefulldevelopmentoffactsessentialtoproper  representationoftheclientbutalsoencouragespeopletoseekearlylegalassistance.    [3]Almostwithoutexception,clientscometolawyersinordertodeterminewhattheir T rightsareandwhatis,inthemazeoflawsandregulations,deemedtobelegalandcorrect.The =  commonlawrecognizesthattheclient'sconfidencesmustbeprotectedfromdisclosure.Based & v uponexperience,lawyersknowthatalmostallclientsfollowtheadvicegiven,andthelawis  _ upheld.  H   [4]Afundamentalprincipleintheclient-lawyerrelationshipisthatthelawyermaintain    confidentialityofinformationrelatingtotherepresentation.Thiscontributestothetrustthatis   thehallmarkoftheclientlawyerrelationship.Theclientistherebyencouragedtocommunicate   fullyandfranklywiththelawyerevenastoembarrassingorlegallydamagingsubjectmatter.     [5]Theprincipleoflawyerclientconfidentialityisgiveneffectbyrelatedbodiesoflaw, W  includingtheattorney-clientprivilege,theworkproductdoctrine,andtheruleofconfidentiality @ establishedinprofessionalethics.Theattorney-clientprivilegeappliesinjudicialandother )y proceedingsinwhichalawyermaybecalledasawitnessorotherwiserequiredtoproduce b evidenceconcerningaclient.Theruleofclient-lawyerconfidentialityappliesinsituationsother K thanthosewhereevidenceissoughtfromthelawyerthroughcompulsionoflaw.The 4 confidentialityrule,forexample,appliesnotonlytomatterscommunicatedinconfidencebythe  clientbutalsotoallinformationrelatingtotherepresentation,whateveritssource.Alawyer  maynotdisclosesuchinformationexceptasauthorizedorrequiredbytheRulesofProfessional  Conductorotherlaw.SeealsoScope.    [6]Therequirementofmaintainingconfidentialityofinformationrelatingto Z representationappliestogovernmentlawyerswhomaydisagreewiththepolicygoalsthattheir C representationisdesignedtoadvance. ,|   [7]Paragraph(a)prohibitsalawyerfromrevealinginformationrelatingtothe N representationofaclient.Thisprohibitionalsoappliestodisclosuresbyalawyerthatdonotin  7 themselvesrevealprotectedinformationbutcouldreasonablyleadtothediscoveryofsuch !   informationbyathirdperson.Alawyersuseof_hypotheticals_Ԁtodiscussissuesrelatingtothe " ! representationispermissiblesolongasthereisnoreasonablelikelihoodthatthelistenerwillbe #" abletoascertaintheidentityoftheclientorthesituationinvolved. $#   AuthorizedDisclosure ]&!% ;   [8]Alawyerisimpliedlyauthorizedtomakedisclosuresaboutaclientwhenappropriate 0(#' incarryingouttherepresentation,excepttotheextentthattheclient'sinstructionsorspecial )i$( circumstanceslimitthatauthority.Inlitigation,forexample,alawyermaydiscloseinformation *R%) byadmittingafactthatcannotproperlybedisputed,orinnegotiationbymakingadisclosure *;&* thatfacilitatesasatisfactoryconclusion. +$'+ Ї  [9]Lawyersinafirmmay,inthecourseofthefirm'spractice,disclosetoeachother  informationrelatingtoaclientofthefirm,unlesstheclienthasinstructedthatparticular  informationbeconfinedtospecifiedlawyers.      DisclosureAdversetoClient  T n?  [10]Althoughthepublicinterestisusuallybestservedbyastrictrulerequiringlawyers ' w topreservetheconfidentialityofinformationrelatingtotherepresentationoftheirclients,the  ` confidentialityruleissubjecttolimitedexceptions.Paragraph(b)(1)recognizestheoverriding  I valueoflifeandphysicalintegrityandpermitsdisclosurereasonablynecessarytoprevent  2  reasonablycertaindeathorsubstantialbodilyharm.Substantialbodilyharmincludeslife    threateninganddebilitatingillnessesandtheconsequencesofchildsexualabuse.Suchinjuries   arereasonablycertaintooccuriftheywillbesufferedimminentlyorifthereisapresentand   substantialthreatthatapersonwillsuffersuchinjuriesatalaterdateifthelawyerfailstotake   actionnecessarytoeliminatethethreat.Thus,alawyerwhoknowsthataclienthasaccidentally o  dischargedtoxicwasteintoatownswatersupplymayrevealthisinformationtotheauthorities X  ifthereisapresentandsubstantialriskthatapersonwhodrinksthewaterwillcontractalife A threateningordebilitatingdiseaseandthelawyersdisclosureisnecessarytoeliminatethethreat *z orreducethenumberofvictims.  c      [11]Paragraph(b)(2)enablesthelawyertorevealinformationtotheextentnecessaryto 5 preventtheclientfromcommittingacrime.Theclientcan,ofcourse,preventsuchdisclosureby  refrainingfromthewrongfulconduct.AlthoughParagraph(b)(2)doesnotrequirethatthe  lawyerrevealtheclientsmisconduct,thelawyermaynotinanywaycounseltheclientto  engage,orassisttheclient,inconductthatthelawyerknowsiscriminalorfraudulent.SeeRule  1.2(d).SeealsoRule1.16withrespecttothelawyersobligationorrighttowithdrawfromthe r representationoftheclientinsuchcircumstances.Wheretheclientisanorganization,the [ lawyermaybeindoubtwhethercontemplatedconductwillactuallybecarriedoutbythe D organizationsconstituents.WherenecessarytoguideconductinconnectionwiththisRule,the -} lawyermaymakeinquirywithintheorganizationasindicatedinRule1.13(b).Rule3.3,rather f thanParagraph(b)(2)governsdisclosureofaclientsintentiontocommitperjuryorothercrimes O inconnectionwithanadjudicativeproceeding.  8   [12]Paragraph(b)(3)addressesthesituationinwhichalawyerserviceshavebeenused " ! bytheclientinfurtheranceoftheclientscommissionofacrimeorfraud,butthelawyerdoes #" notdiscoverthismisuseofthelawyersservicesuntilafterthecrimeorfraudhasbeen $# consummatedandlosshasbeensufferedbythevictim.Althoughtheclientnolongerhasthe u% $ optionofpreventingdisclosurebyrefrainingfromthewrongfulconduct,therewillbesituations ^&!% inwhichasubstantiallosssufferedbytheaffectedpersoncanberectifiedormitigated.Insuch G'"& situations,thelawyermaydiscloseinformationrelatingtorepresentationtotheextentnecessary 0(#' toassisttheaffectedpersonsrecouptheirlosses. )i$(     [13]Alawyersconfidentialityobligationsdonotprecludealawyerfromsecuringlegal *;&* adviceaboutthelawyerspersonalresponsibilitytocomplywiththeseRules.Inmostsituations, +$'+ disclosinginformationtosecuresuchadvicewillbeimpliedlyauthorizedforthelawyertocarry  outtherepresentation.Evenwhenthedisclosureisnotimpliedlyauthorized,paragraph(b)(4)  permitssuchdisclosurebecauseoftheimportanceofalawyerscompliancewiththeRulesof  ProfessionalConduct.Fortheprotectionoftheclient,suchdisclosuresmaybemadeonlyif k theywillbeprotectedbytheattorneyclientprivilege. T   [14]Wherealegalclaimordisciplinarychargeallegescomplicityofthelawyerina & v client'sconductorothermisconductofthelawyerinvolvingrepresentationoftheclient,the  _ lawyermayrespondtotheextentthelawyerreasonablybelievesnecessarytoestablisha  H defense.Thesameistruewithrespecttoaclaiminvolvingtheconductorrepresentationofa  1  formerclient.Suchachargecanariseinacivil,criminalorprofessionaldisciplinaryproceeding,    andcanbebasedonawrongallegedlycommittedbythelawyeragainsttheclient,oronawrong   allegedbyathirdperson;forexample,apersonclaimingtohavebeendefraudedbythelawyer   andclientactingtogether.Thelawyer'srighttorespondariseswhenanassertionofsuch   complicityhasbeenmade.Paragraph(b)(5)doesnotrequirethelawyertoawaitthe n  commencementofanactionorproceedingthatchargessuchcomplicity,sothatthedefensemay W  beestablishedbyrespondingdirectlytoathirdpartywhohasmadesuchanassertion.Theright @ todefend,ofcourse,applieswhereaproceedinghasbeencommenced.Wherepracticableand )y notprejudicialtothelawyer'sabilitytoestablishthedefense,thelawyershouldadvisetheclient b ofthethirdparty'sassertionandrequestthattheclientrespondappropriately.Inanyevent, K disclosureshouldbenogreaterthanthelawyerreasonablybelievesisnecessarytovindicate 4 innocence,thedisclosureshouldbemadeinamannerwhichlimitsaccesstotheinformationto  thetribunalorotherpersonshavinganeedtoknowit,andappropriateprotectiveordersorother  arrangementsshouldbesoughtbythelawyertothefullestextentpracticable.    [15]Alawyerentitledtoafeeispermittedbyparagraph(b)(5)toprovetheservices q renderedinanactiontocollectit.Thisaspectoftheruleexpressestheprinciplethatthe Z beneficiaryofafiduciaryrelationshipmaynotexploitittothedetrimentofthefiduciary.As C statedabove,thelawyermustmakeeveryeffortpracticabletoavoidunnecessarydisclosureof ,| informationrelatingtoarepresentation,tolimitdisclosuretothosehavingtheneedtoknowit, e andtoobtainprotectiveordersormakeotherarrangementsminimizingtheriskofdisclosure. N   [16]Paragraph(b)permitsbutdoesnotrequirethedisclosureoruseofinformation !   relatingtoaclientsrepresentationtoaccomplishthepurposesspecifiedinparagraphs(b)(1) " ! through(5).InexercisingthediscretionconferredbythisRule,thelawyermayconsidersuch #" factorsasthenatureofthelawyer'srelationshipwiththeclientandwiththosewhomightbe $# injuredbytheclient,thelawyer'sowninvolvementinthetransactionandfactorsthatmay t% $ extenuatetheconductinquestion.Wherepractical,thelawyershouldseektopersuadetheclient ]&!% totakesuitableaction.Inanycase,adisclosureadversetotheclient'sinterestshouldbeno F'"& greaterthanthelawyerreasonablybelievesnecessarytothepurpose.Alawyer'sdecisionnotto /(#' takepreventiveactionpermittedbyparagraph(b)doesnotviolatethisRule. )h$(   DisclosureOtherwiseRequiredorAuthorized  *;&* W` +%'+   [17]TheRulesofProfessionalConductinvariouscircumstancespermitorrequirea  lawyertodiscloseinformationrelatingtotherepresentation.SeeRules2.2,2.3,3.3and4.1.In  additiontotheseprovisions,alawyermaybeobligatedorpermittedbyotherprovisionsoflaw  togiveinformationaboutaclient.WhetheranotherprovisionoflawsupersedesRule1.6isa k matterofinterpretationbeyondthescopeoftheseRules.f  g f  g  T   [18]Alawyermustalsocomplywithlawfulordersofatribunal,anadministrativeor & v executiveagency,oralegislativebody.Ifalawyeriscalledasawitnesstogivetestimony  _ concerningaclient,orisotherwiseorderedtorevealinformationrelatingtotheclients  H representation,thelawyermust,absentauthorizationfromtheclienttodootherwise,asserton  1  behalfoftheclientallnonfrivolousclaimsthattheinformationsoughtisprotectedagainst    disclosurebytheattorneyclientprivilegeorotherapplicablelaw.Intheeventofanadverse   ruling,thelawyershouldconsultwiththeclientaboutthepossibilityofappealingtheadverse   ruling.SeeRule1.4and1.2.Unlessanappealistaken,thelawyermustcomplywiththeorder.      ActingCompetentlytoPreserveConfidentiality  W  f  [19]Alawyermustactcompetentlytosafeguardinformationrelatingtothe *z representationofaclientagainstinadvertentorunauthorizeddisclosurebythelawyerorby c otherpersonswhoareparticipatingintherepresentationoftheclientorwhoaresubjecttothe L lawyerssupervision.SeeRules1.1,5.1,and5.3. 5   [20]Whentransmittingacommunicationthatincludesinformationrelatingtothe  representationofaclient,thelawyermusttakereasonableprecautionstopreventtheinformation  fromcomingintothehandsofunintendedrecipients.Thisduty,however,doesnotrequirethat  thelawyerutilizespecialsecuritymeasuresifthemethodofcommunicationaffordsareasonable r expectationofprivacy.Specialcircumstances,however,maywarrantspecialprecautions. [ Factorstobeconsideredindeterminingthereasonablenessofthelawyersexpectationof D confidentialityincludethesensitivityoftheinformationandtheextenttowhichtheprivacyof -} thecommunicationisprotectedbylaworbyaconfidentialityagreement.Aclientmayrequire f thelawyertoimplementspecialsecuritymeasuresnotrequiredbythisRuleormaygive O informedconsenttotheuseofameansofcommunicationthatwouldotherwisebeprohibitedby  8 thisRule. !!  f  g   f  g FormerClients  #" mӂ   [21]Thedutyofconfidentialitycontinuesaftertheclientlawyerrelationshiphasbeen v% $ terminated. SeeRule1.9(c). _&!%    _DEFINITIONAL_ԀCROSSREFERENCES 4(#'  n ConsultationSeeRule1.0(c) *W%)  FraudSeeRule1.0(e) *@&*  ReasonablySeeRule1.0(_i_) +)'+  ReasonablyBelievesSeeRule1.0(j)   SubstantialSeeRule1.0(l)   TribunalSeeRule1.0(m)   m   @ COMMITTEENOTES  T p ComparisonToCurrentTennesseeEthicsRules 󀀀 ' w   Paragraph(a):Thereferenceto informationrelatingtotherepresentationoftheclient  L encompassesmoreinformationthanembracedbyDR4101(A)sreferenceto confidencesand  5   secrets.ThisisbecauseDR4101(A)defineda secretintermsofinformation"gainedin"    theprofessionalrelationshipthat"theclienthasrequestedbeheldinviolateorthedisclosureof   whichwouldbeembarrassingorwouldbelikelytobedetrimentaltotheclient."     Paragraph(b)(1):NocounterpartinTennesseeRules. r    Paragraph(b)(2):f  Substantiallysimilarf  g ԀtoDR4101(c)(3). D   Paragraph(b)(3):NocounterpartinTennesseeRules. f   Paragraph(b)(4):NocounterpartinTennesseeRules. 8   Paragraph(b)(5):DR4101(C)(4)permitsdisclosures necessarytoestablishorcollect   hisfeeortodefendhimselforhisemployeesorassociatesagainstanaccusationofwrongful  conduct.     Paragraph(c):DR4101(C)(2)permitsdisclosure when...requiredby_law_Ԁ_or_Ԁ_court_ _ _order_.  H f  g _Comparison_Ԁ_to_Ԁ_ABA_Ԁ_Model_ԀRules  n   Paragraph(a):ProposedRule1.6(a)isidenticaltoABAModelRule1.6(a).  A     Paragraph(b)(1):ProposedRule1.6(b)(1)tracksABA_Model_Ԁ_Rule_Ԁ1.6(_b_)(1),_only_ "! _permits_Ԁ_disclosure_Ԁ_to_Ԁ_prevent_Ԁ_the_Ԁ_client_Ԁ_as_Ԁwellastheclient,fromcommittingacrimelikelyto #" resultinimminentdeathorsubstantialbodilyharm. $#     Paragraphs(b)(2)and(3):TheModelRulesdoesnotpermitdisclosuretopreventthe g&!% clientfromcommittingacrimeortorectifysubstantialresultingfromacrimeorfraudin_the_ P'"& _commission_Ԁ_of_Ԁwhichtheclientshadusedthelawyersservices. 9(#'   Paragraph(b)(4):ThereisnocounterpartintheABAModelRules.  *[%)     Paragraph(b)(5):Paragraph(b)(5)isidenticaltotheABAModelRule1.6(b)(2). +-'+ Ї  Paragraph(c): ThereisnocounterpartintheABAModelRules.   ChangesMadeto1997CommitteePreliminaryDraftInResponsetoComments   B.` hp x (#XB   Paragraphs(a),(b)(g 5f  g ),and(c)arethesameasparagraphs(A),(B)(f  4f  g )g ,f  g Ԁand(C)(2)inthe Y PreliminaryDraft. B    Paragraph(b)(1): TheCommitteehasbroadenedthegrantofpermissiontolawyersto  d revealinformationrelatingtotherepresentationofaclientforthepurposeofpreventingdeathor  P substantialbodily.Disclosureisnowpermittedwithoutanyrequirementthatitbetheresult  9  clientscrime.Alsothedeathorinjurynolongermustbeimminent.Itissufficientiftheharm  "  isreasonablycertaintooccur.ThischangeisconsistentwiththeAmericanLawInstitute   RestatementoftheLawGoverningLawyers.     Paragraph(b)(2):Paragraph(b)(2)isnewandpermitsdisclosuretopreventthe v  commissionofanycrime(withanexceptionforthosecrimesagainsttheadministrationof _  justicethatareaddressedbyRule3.3).Thiscarriesforwardintotheproposedrulethe H permissiontorevealclientconfidencesandsecretsgrantedbyDR4-101(c)(3). 1   DeletionofParagraph(B)(3)ofthePreliminaryDraft:TheCommitteedeletedparagraph S (B)(3)thatpermitteddisclosure"toinformalawfirmwithwhomthelawyerproposesto < associate,orwithwhomthelawyerhasassociated,oftheidentityofthelawyersclients,and % generalsubjectmatteroftherepresentationofthoseclients,butonlyifthelawyerreasonably  believesthatsuchdisclosurewillnotmateriallydisadvantagetheclient." Giventhelimited  natureoftheinformationinvolvedandthegenerallyacceptedpracticeamonglawyers,the  Committeeconcludedthatthisexceptionwasnotnecessary. |    Paragraph(b)(3):Paragraph(b)(3)isnewandpermitsdisclosuretorectifyormitigate O substantialfinanciallossresultingfromaclientscrimeorfraudinwhichtheclientusedthe 8 lawyersservices.Therationaleforthisexceptionisthattheclienthasabusedthe !q attorney-clientrelationshipbyusingthelawyersservicestocommitthecrimeorfraudandhas  Z therebyforfeitedtheprotectionsofRule1.6.  C    Paragraph(b)(4):Paragraph(b)(4)representsatighterformulationoftheexceptionin "! paragraph(B)(2)ofthePreliminaryDraft.Thechangehasnoeffectonthescopeofthe #" exception. $#   Paragraph(c)(1):TheCommitteehasdeletedthereferencesto"anagency"sothelawyer j&!% isonlyrequiredtocomplywithordersofa"tribunal."TheCommitteethinksthatconfidentiality S'"& issoimportantthatlawyersshouldonlyberequiredtoabidebytheorderofacourtora <(#' comparableadjudicativebody. %)u$( #X XX2X ѣ&# CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges *G&* Made 2X XXX  +1'+ Ї#X XX2X {#  1.Fordifferentreasons,theKnoxvilleBarAssociationandtheEastTennesseeVictims  RightsTaskForcehavevoicedconcernabouttheCommitteesrecommendationthatRule1.6  protectall informationrelatingtotherepresentationofaclient.The_KBA_sconcernisthatthe  breadthoftheprotectionwillunnecessarilyprohibitlawyersfromsharinginformationacquired k duringarepresentationthatwouldhelpeducatethebarorfacilitatesettlementandmediation. T TheVictimsRightsTaskForce,ontheotherhand,objectsbecauseRule1.6protectsmorethan =  theclientscommunicationswiththelawyerandaffordslawyersashieldbehindwhichtheycan & v hidetoavoidwhatmostcitizenswouldconsiderourobligationstoourcommunities.  _   TheCommitteeconcedesthatRule1.6protectsmoreinformationthanprotectedbythe  1  DR4101,whichonlyprotects confidencesand secrets.TheessentialdifferenceisthatRule    1.6precludesdisclosureofinformationrelatingtotherepresentationwithoutregardtowhether   disclosurewouldbeembarrassingorwouldlikelytodetrimentaltotheclient.TheCommittee,   however,doesnotsharethe_KBA_sconcernaboutthisruleasanimpedimenttoeducationofthe   barbecause,asnotedinComment[7],lawyerscanuse_hypotheticals_Ԁtosharetheirexperience n  withotherlawyers.NordoestheRuleprecludeadisclosurethatwillfacilitatesettlementor W  mediationbecausesuchdisclosureswouldbeimpliedlyauthorizedtocarryoutthe @ representation.Theclientcanalsoexpresslyauthorizesuchdisclosures.Nordoesthe )y CommitteeagreewiththeVictimsRightsTaskForcecriticismbecausetheinformationabout b whichtheyareconcernedinformationrelatingtothecommissionofcrimewouldbeharmful K totheclientandwouldthereforeconstitutea secretunderDR4101(A).Inthisregard,the 4 Committeesproposaldoesnotchangethelaw.Moreimportantly,theCommitteewouldnote  thatitsproposalbroadensthecircumstancesinwhichalawyerispermittedtodisclose  informationrelatingtoaclientsrepresentationtopreventlossoflifeorsubstantialbodilyharm,  topreventtheclientfromcommittingacrime,andtorectifyormitigatetheconsequencesofa  crimeorfraudinwhichtheclientusedthelawyersservices. q   2.T._Maxfield_Ԁ_Bahner_ԀofChattanoogaBarhasaskedtheCommitteetofollowtheleadof C theABAHouseofDelegatesandtheAmericanCollegeofTrialLawyersanddeleteParagraphs ,| (b)(2)and(b)(3).Theeffectofthisproposalwouldbetoprohibitlawyers,absentclientconsent, e fromrevealinginformationrelatingtotheclientsrepresentation,evenwhennecessaryto N preventtheclientfromcommittingacrimeortomitigateorrectifytheconsequencesofacrime  7 orfraudinthecommissionofwhichtheclienthadusedthelawyersservices.Withduerespect !   totheAmericanCollegeofTrialLawyersandtheABAHouseofDelegates,theCommittee " ! believestheirpositiononconfidentialityisoutoflinewiththeprevailingsentimentinTennessee #" andmostotherjurisdictionsaboutthecircumstancesinwhichlawyersshouldbepermittedto $# takeactiontoprotectothersfromthewrongfulconductoftheirclients.Paragraph(b)(2)is t% $ consistentwithcurrentlawinTennessee,andParagraph(b)(3)onlypermitsdisclosureswhenthe ]&!% clienthasgrosslyabusedtheattorneyclientrelationshipbyusingthelawyersservicesin F'"& furtheranceoftheclientscrimeorfraud. /(#' f  g f  g   3._Paragraph_Ԁ(_b_)(2)_permits_Ԁ_a_Ԁ_lawyer_Ԁ_to_Ԁ_disclose_Ԁ_information_Ԁ_relating_Ԁ_to_Ԁtherepresentation *Q%) topreventcommissionofacrime,unlessdisclosureisprohibitedorrestrictedbyRule3.3.The *:&* _Board_Ԁ_of_Ԁ_Professional_Ԁ_Responsibility_Ԁ_and_Ԁ_representatives_Ԁ_of_Ԁ_several_Ԁ_victim__s_Ԁ_rights_Ԁ_groups_Ԁ_have_ +#'+ askedtheCourttodroptheexceptiontothelawyersrighttorevealaclientsintentionto  commitacrime.TheCommitteeurgestheCourtnottodoso.Thesolepurposeforthecross  referencetoRule3.3inParagraph(b)(3)istoclarifythatRule3.3,ratherthanRule1.6(2),  governswhenthecrimeinquestionrelatestoanadjudicativeproceeding.Paragraphs(c)and k (d)ofRule3.3donotallowdisclosureincasesinwhichtheclientintendsorhascommitteda T fraudagainstthecourtoranoffenseagainsttheadministrationofjustice(otherthanjury =  tampering).SeetheCommitteesdiscussionofproposalstomodifyRule3.3.Permitting & v disclosurepursuanttoRule1.6(b)(2)wouldbeinconsistentwiththerestrictionsondisclosurein  _ Rule3.3.IftheCourtapprovestheCommitteesproposalwithrespecttoRule3.3,itshouldnot  H changeRule1.6(b)(2).  1    4.Paragraph(b)(3):Onitsownmotion,theCommitteeproposesthatanexception   comparabletothatinParagraph(b)(2)beaddedtoParagraph(b)(3)thatpermitsdisclosureto   rectifytheconsequencesofaclientscrimeorfraud.Uponreviewoftherelationshipbetween   theexceptionsinRule1.6(b)andRule3.3,theCommitteeconcludedthattheremightbe n  situationsinwhichParagraph(b)(3)mightbereadtopermitdisclosureinsituationsinwhichit W  wouldbeprohibitedbyRule3.3.Onceagain,thesolepurposeofthischangeistoclarifythat @ lawyersmustbeguidedbyRule3.3ratherthanRule1.6(b)(3)whenthecrimeinfraudin )y questionrelatestoanadjudicativeproceeding. b   5.Paragraphs(b)(1)and(b)(2):BoththeUnitedStatesAttorneysandtheTennessee 4 DistrictAttorneysGeneralConferencehaveaskedtheCourttomodifytheCommitteesproposal  inParagraphs(b)(1)and(b)(2)soastorequire(ratherthanmerelypermit)lawyerstoreveal  informationrelatingtoclientsrepresentationtotheextentnecessarytopreventreasonably  certaindeathorsubstantialbodilyharmandtopreventtheclientoranotherpersonfrom  committingacrime.TheCommitteeopposesthisproposalbecauseitwouldimposean q obligationonlawyersthatisnotimposedonothercitizensandwoulddosoinsituationsin Z whichthelawyerhasnogreaterability,eitherbyvirtueoftrainingorexperience,topredict C wheredeathorsubstantialbodilyinjurywillresultorthattheclientwillactuallycarryoutthe ,| crimeinquestion.TheCommitteeisalsoconcernedthatmandatorydisclosurewouldhavea e muchgreateradverseaffectonclientswillingnesstoconfidewiththeirlawyersthanwouldbe N thecasewhenthelawyerispermittedtodisclose,butretainsthediscretiontoremainsilent.  7   6.TheAttorneyGeneralhasvoicedconcernsabouttherelationshipbetweenRule1.6and " ! theOpenMeetingLaw,asinterpretedbytheCourtinSmithCountyEduc.Assnv.Anderson, #" 676S.W.2d328(Tenn.1984),andVan_Hooser_Ԁv.WarrenCo.Bd.ofEduc.,807S.W.2d230 $# (Tenn.1991).TheAttorneyGeneralisconcernedthatthesedecisionsmightnotbedeemed t% $  otherlawrequiringdisclosureandhisconcernisheightenedbytheassertioninComment[17] ]&!% thatthereshouldbeapresumptionagainstotherlawsupercedingRule1.6.TheCommittee F'"& believesthatitisbeyondquestionthatastatutesuchastheOpenMeetingsAct,asinterpretedby /(#' theSupremeCourt,constitutes otherlawwithinthemeaningofRule1.6(c).Also,the )h$( CommitteebelievesthatithasadequatelyaddressedtheAttorneyGeneralsconcernsbyadding *Q%) aspecificreferencetotheOpenMeetingsActinScope,Paragraph[4],andbydeletingthe *:&* assertioninRule1.6,Comment[17]thatthereshouldbeapresumptionagainstotherlaw +#'+ supercedingRule1.6.ThedeletedassertioninComment[17]wascontainedintheABAModel  RuleComment,buttheCommitteeconcursintherecommendationoftheABAEthics2000  Commissionthatitbedeletedasanunnecessaryandinappropriateattemptcontroltheresolution  ofaquestionoflawthattheCommentacknowledgesisbeyondthescopeoftheRules. k 2X XXX A XXdXXdK,A     _ PROPOSEDRULE1.7  CONFLICTOFINTEREST:GENERALRULE    t, (a)Alawyershallnotrepresentaclientiftherepresentationofthatclientwillbedirectly n adversetoanotherclient,unless: W   (1)thelawyerreasonablybelievestherepresentationwillnotadverselyaffectthe  ) y   relationshipwiththeotherclient;and  b   (2)eachclientconsentsinwritingafterconsultation.  4  (b)Alawyershallnotrepresentaclientiftherepresentationofthatclientmaybematerially   limitedbythelawyer'sresponsibilitiestoanotherclientortoathirdperson,orbythelawyer's   owninterests,unless:     (1)thelawyerreasonablybelievestherepresentationwillnotbeadverselyaffected; Z    and C   (2)theclientconsentsinwritingafterconsultation.Whenrepresentationofmultiple e   clientsinasinglematterisundertaken,theconsultationshallincludeexplanationofthe N   implicationsofthecommonrepresentationandtheadvantagesandrisksinvolved. 7    COMMENT    ټ   LoyaltytoaClient     [1]Loyaltyisanessentialelementinthelawyer'srelationshiptoaclient.An _ impermissibleconflictofinterestmayexistbeforerepresentationisundertaken,inwhichevent H therepresentationshouldbedeclined.Thelawyershouldadoptreasonableprocedures, 1 appropriateforthesizeandtypeoffirmandpractice,todetermineinbothlitigationand j non-litigationmattersthepartiesandissuesinvolvedandtodeterminewhetherthereareactual  S orpotentialconflictsofinterest.  <   [2]Ifsuchaconflictarisesafterrepresentationhasbeenundertaken,thelawyershould "! withdrawfromtherepresentation.SeeRule1.16.Wheremorethanoneclientisinvolvedand #" thelawyerwithdrawsbecauseaconflictarisesafterrepresentation,whetherthelawyermay $# continuetorepresentanyoftheclientsisdeterminedbyRule1.9.Astowhetheraclient-lawyer y% $ relationshipexistsor,havingoncebeenestablished,iscontinuing,seetheCommenttoRule1.3 b&!% andthestatementinthePreambleaboutthescopeoftheseRules. K'"&   [3]Asageneralproposition,loyaltytoaclientprohibitsundertakingrepresentation )m$( directlyadversetothatclientwithoutthatclient'sconsent.Paragraph(a)expressesthatgeneral *V%) rule.Thus,alawyerordinarilymaynotactasadvocateagainstapersonthelawyerrepresentsin *?&* someothermatter,evenifitiswhollyunrelated.Ontheotherhand,simultaneousrepresentation +('+ inunrelatedmattersofclientswhoseinterestsareonlygenerallyadverse,suchascompeting  economicenterprises,doesnotrequireconsentoftherespectiveclients.Paragraph(a)applies  onlywhentherepresentationofoneclientwouldbedirectlyadversetotheother.    [4]Loyaltytoaclientisalsoimpairedwhenalawyercannotconsider,recommendor T carryoutanappropriatecourseofactionfortheclientbecauseofthelawyer'sother =  responsibilitiesorinterests.Theconflictineffectforeclosesalternativesthatwouldotherwisebe & v availabletotheclient.Paragraph(b)addressessuchsituations.Apossibleconflictdoesnotitself  _ precludetherepresentation.Thecriticalquestionsarethelikelihoodthataconflictwilleventuate  H and,ifitdoes,whetheritwillmateriallyinterferewiththelawyer'sindependentprofessional  1  judgmentinconsideringalternativesorforeclosecoursesofactionthatreasonablyshouldbe    pursuedonbehalfoftheclient.Considerationshouldbegiventowhethertheclientwishesto   accommodatetheotherinterestinvolved.      ConsultationandConsent  n    [5]Aclientmayconsenttorepresentationnotwithstandingaconflict.However,as A indicatedinparagraph(a)(1)withrespecttorepresentationdirectlyadversetoaclient,and *z paragraph(b)(1)withrespecttomateriallimitationsonrepresentationofaclient,whena c disinterestedlawyerwouldconcludethattheclientshouldnotagreetotherepresentationunder L thecircumstances,thelawyerinvolvedcannotproperlyaskforsuchagreementorprovide 5 representationonthebasisoftheclient'sconsent.Whenmorethanoneclientisinvolved,the  questionofconflictmustberesolvedastoeachclient.Moreover,theremaybecircumstances  whereitisimpossibletomakethedisclosurenecessarytoobtainconsent.Forexample,whenthe  lawyerrepresentsdifferentclientsinrelatedmattersandoneoftheclientsrefusestoconsentto  thedisclosurenecessarytopermittheotherclienttomakeaninformeddecision,thelawyer r cannotproperlyaskthelattertoconsent. [   [6]Intheabsenceofotherlawtothecontrary,agovernmentofficialorentity,likeany -} otherclient,maywaiveaconflictofinterestunderthisRule. f Ѐ  [7]ThisRulerequiresthelawyereithertosecureawrittenconsentexecutedbytheclient  8 ortomemorializeanoralconsentgivenbytheclient.SeeRule1.0(b)Terminology(defining !!   ConsentsinWriting).Ifitisnotfeasibletosecureormemorializethewritingeitheratthetime " ! theconflictarisesoratthetimetheclientgivesconsent,thenthelawyermustsecureor #" memorializeitwithinareasonabletimethereafter.Therequirementofawritingdoesnot $# supplanttheneedinmostcasesforthelawyertotalkwiththeclient,toexplaintherisksand u% $ advantages,ifany,ofrepresentationburdenedbyaconflictofinterest,aswellasthereasonably ^&!% availablealternatives,andtoaffordtheclientanopportunitytoraisequestionsandconcerns. G'"& Rather,thewritingisrequiredinordertoimpressuponclientstheseriousnessofthedecision 0(#' theyarebeingaskedtomakeandtoresolvedisputesorambiguitiesthatmightlateroccurby )i$( virtueoftherebeingnowriting.Thewritingneednottakeanyparticularform;itshould, *R%)  however,includedisclosureoftherelevantcircumstancesandreasonablyforeseeablerisksofthe *;&* conflictofinterest,aswellasmemorializationoftheclientsagreementtotherepresentation  despitesuchrisks.     Lawyer'sInterests  k   [8]Thelawyer'sowninterestsshouldnotbepermittedtohaveanadverseeffectonthe >  representationofaclient.Forexample,alawyer'sneedforincomeshouldnotleadthelawyerto ' w undertakemattersthatcannotbehandledcompetentlyandatareasonablefee.SeeRules1.1and  ` 1.5.Iftheprobityofalawyer'sownconductinatransactionisinseriousquestion,itmaybe  I difficultorimpossibleforthelawyertogiveaclientdetachedadvice.Alawyermaynotallow  2  relatedbusinessintereststoaffectrepresentation,forexample,byreferringclientstoan    enterpriseinwhichthelawyerhasanundisclosedinterest.      ConflictsinLitigation      [9]Paragraph(a)prohibitsrepresentationofopposingpartiesinlitigation.Simultaneous Y  representationofpartieswhoseinterestsinlitigationmayconflict,suchasco-plaintiffsor B co-defendants,isgovernedbyparagraph(b).Animpermissibleconflictmayexistbyreasonof +{ substantialdiscrepancyintheparties'testimony,incompatibilityinpositionsinrelationtoan d opposingpartyorthefactthattherearesubstantiallydifferentpossibilitiesofsettlementofthe M claimsorliabilitiesinquestion.Suchconflictscanariseincriminalcasesaswellascivil.The 6 potentialforconflictofinterestinrepresentingmultipledefendantsinacriminalcaseissograve  thatordinarilyalawyershoulddeclinetorepresentmorethanone_codefendant_.Ontheother  hand,commonrepresentationofpersonshavingsimilarinterestsisproperiftheriskofadverse  effectisminimalandtherequirementsofparagraph(b)aremet.CompareRule2.2involving  intermediationbetweenclients. s   [10]Ordinarily,alawyermaynotactasadvocateagainstaclientthelawyerrepresentsin E someothermatter,eveniftheothermatteriswhollyunrelated.However,thereare .~ circumstancesinwhichalawyermayactasadvocateagainstaclient.Forexample,alawyer g representinganenterprisewithdiverseoperationsmayacceptemploymentasanadvocate  P againsttheenterpriseinanunrelatedmatterifdoingsowillnotadverselyaffectthelawyer's  9 relationshipwiththeenterpriseorconductofthesuitandifbothclientsconsentupon !"  consultation.Bythesametoken,governmentlawyersinsomecircumstancesmayrepresent " ! governmentemployeesinproceedingsinwhichagovernmentagencyistheopposingparty.The #" proprietyofconcurrentrepresentationcandependonthenatureofthelitigation.Forexample,a $# suitchargingfraudentailsconflicttoadegreenotinvolvedinasuitforadeclaratoryjudgment v% $ concerningstatutoryinterpretation. _&!%   [11]Ordinarilyalawyermaytakeinconsistentlegalpositionsindifferenttribunalsat 1(#' differenttimesonbehalfofdifferentclients.Themerefactthatadvocatingalegalpositionon )j$( behalfofoneclientmightcreateprecedentadversetotheinterestsofaclientrepresentedbythe *S%) lawyerinanunrelatedmatterdoesnotcreateaconflictofinterest.Aconflictofinterestexists, *<&* however,ifthereisasignificantriskthatalawyersactioninbehalfofoneclientwillmaterially +%'+ limitthelawyerseffectivenessinrepresentinganotherclientinadifferentcase;forexample,  whenadecisionfavoringoneclientwillcreateaprecedentlikelytoseriouslyweakenthe  positiontakenbythelawyeronbehalfoftheotherclient.Factorsrelevantindetermining  whethertheclientsneedtobeadvisedoftheriskinclude:wherethecasesarepending;whether k theissueissubstantiveorprocedural;thetemporalrelationshipbetweenthematters;the T significanceoftheissuetotheimmediateandlongruninterestsoftheclientsinvolved;andthe =  clientsreasonableexpectationsinretainingthelawyer.Ifthereissignificantriskofmaterial & v limitation,thenabsentinformedconsentoftheaffectedclients,thelawyermustrefuseoneofthe  _ representationsorwithdrawfromoneorbothmatters.  H    InterestofPersonPayingforaLawyer'sService       [12]Alawyermaybepaidfromasourceotherthantheclient,iftheclientisinformedof   thatfactandconsentsandthearrangementdoesnotcompromisethelawyer'sdutyofloyaltyto   theclient.SeeRule1.8(f).Forexample,whenaninsureranditsinsuredhaveconflicting o  interestsinamatterarisingfromaliabilityinsuranceagreement,andtheinsurerisrequiredto X  providespecialcounselfortheinsured,thearrangementshouldassurethespecialcounsel's A professionalindependence.Soalso,whenacorporationanditsdirectorsoremployeesare *z involvedinacontroversyinwhichtheyhaveconflictinginterests,thecorporationmayprovide c fundsforseparatelegalrepresentationofthedirectorsoremployees,iftheclientsconsentafter L consultationandthearrangementensuresthelawyer'sprofessionalindependence. 5    OtherConflictSituations     [13]Conflictsofinterestincontextsotherthanlitigationsometimesmaybedifficultto  assess.Relevantfactorsindeterminingwhetherthereispotentialforadverseeffectincludethe s durationandintimacyofthelawyer'srelationshipwiththeclientorclientsinvolved,the \ functionsbeingperformedbythelawyer,thelikelihoodthatactualconflictwillariseandthe E likelyprejudicetotheclientfromtheconflictifitdoesarise.Thequestionisoftenoneof .~ proximityanddegree. g   [14]Forexample,alawyermaynotrepresentmultiplepartiestoanegotiationwhose  9 interestsarefundamentallyantagonistictoeachother,butcommonrepresentationispermissible !"  wheretheclientsaregenerallyalignedininteresteventhoughthereissomedifferenceofinterest " ! amongthem.SeeRule2.2withrespecttoalawyerservingtwoormoreclientsasan #" intermediary. $#   [15]f  g Membersofafamilygroupmayreasonablyseekjointrepresentationbyasingle _&!% lawyerinamatteraffectingthefamily.f  g Conflictquestionsmayf  g ariseinf  g suchcircumstances.For H'"& example,inf  g estateplanningf  g f  g ,af  g Ԁlawyermaybecalledupontopreparewillsforseveralfamily 1(#' members,suchashusbandandwife,and,dependinguponthecircumstances,aconflictof )j$( interestmayarise.f  g Resolutionofconflictsofinterestbetweenfamilymemberspursuanttothis *S%) Rulemustbeconsistentwiththelawyersdutyofundividedloyaltytoeachclient,butthelawyer *<&* maytakeintoaccountthewillingnessofeachindividualclienttoaccommodatetheinterestsof +%'+ thefamilyasawholeortheindividualinterestofotherfamilymembers.f  g Inestate  administration,theidentityoftheclientmaybeunclearf  g f  g .f  g ԀUnderoneview,theclientisthe  fiduciary;underanotherviewtheclientistheestateortrust,includingitsbeneficiaries.The  lawyershouldmakecleartherelationshiptothepartiesinvolved. k   [16]Alawyerforacorporationorotherorganizationwhoisalsoamemberofitsboard =  ofdirectorsshoulddeterminewhethertheresponsibilitiesofthetworolesmayconflict.The & v lawyermaybecalledontoadvisethecorporationinmattersinvolvingactionsofthedirectors.  _ Considerationshouldbegiventothefrequencywithwhichsuchsituationsmayarise,the  H potentialintensityoftheconflict,theeffectofthelawyer'sresignationfromtheboardandthe  1  possibilityofthecorporation'sobtaininglegaladvicefromanotherlawyerinsuchsituations.If    thereismaterialriskthatthedualrolewillcompromisethelawyer'sindependenceof   professionaljudgment,thelawyershouldnotserveasadirector.      ConflictChargedbyanOpposingParty  n    [17]Resolvingquestionsofconflictofinterestisprimarilytheresponsibilityofthe A lawyerundertakingtherepresentation.Inlitigation,acourtmayraisethequestionwhenthereis *z reasontoinferthatthelawyerhasneglectedtheresponsibility.Inacriminalcase,inquirybythe c courtisgenerallyrequiredwhenalawyerrepresentsmultipledefendants.Wheretheconflictis L suchasclearlytocallinquestionthefairorefficientadministrationofjustice,opposingcounsel 5 mayproperlyraisethequestion.Suchanobjectionshouldbeviewedwithcaution,however,for  itcanbemisusedasatechniqueofharassment.     SpecialConsiderationsinJointRepresentation      [18]Inconsideringwhethertorepresentclientsjointlyinthesamematter,suchas \ representingcoplaintiffsorcodefendant,alawyershouldbemindfulthatifthejoint E representationfailsbecausethepotentiallyadverseinterestscannotbereconciled,theresultcan .~ beadditionalcost,embarrassment,andrecrimination.Ordinarily,thelawyerwillbeforcedto g withdrawfromrepresentingalloftheclientsifthejointrepresentationfailsf  g ,unlesseachclient  P consentsafterconsultationf  g .f  g f  g   9   [19]Aparticularlyimportantfactorindeterminingtheappropriatenessofjoint " ! representationistheeffectonlawyerclientconfidentialityandtheattorneyclientprivilege. #" Withregardtotheevidentiaryattorneyclientprivilege,theprevailingruleisthatasbetween $# commonlyrepresentedclients,theprivilegedoesnotattach.Hence,itmustbeassumedthat,if v% $ litigationeventuatesbetweentheclients,theprivilegewillnotprotectanysuchcommunications, _&!% andtheclientsshouldbesoadvised. H'"&   [20]Astothedutyofconfidentiality,jointrepresentationwillalmostcertainlybe )j$( inadequateifoneclientattemptstokeepsomethinginconfidencebetweenthelawyerandthat *S%) client,whichisnottobedisclosedtotheotherclient.Thisissobecausethelawyerhasanequal *<&* dutyofloyaltytoeachclient,andeachclienthastherighttobeinformedofanythingbearingon +%'+ therepresentationthatmightaffectthatclientsinterestsandtoexpectthatthelawyerwilluse  thatinformationtothatclientsbenefit.SeeRule1.4.Thelawyershould,attheoutsetofthe  jointrepresentationandaspartoftheprocessofobtainingeachclientsf  g consent,adviseeach  clientthatf  g thelawyerwillg f  g shareallinformationmaterialtotherepresentationwitheachofthe k jointlyrepresentedclients,unlessspecificallyinstructedbyoneoftheclientsnottodoso.The T lawyershouldalsoadviseeachclientthat,ifanyclientlaterinsistsf  g Ԁthatsomemattermaterialto =  therepresentationshouldbekeptfromtheotherf  g ,thelawyerwillabidebytheclients & v instructionstomaintaintheconfidentialityofthespecifiedinformation,butthatitislikelythat  _ thelawyerwillberequiredtowithdrawfromtherepresentationf  g .f  g f  g ԀInlimitedcircumstancesf  g ,  H howeverf  g ,itmaybeappropriateforthelawyertoproceedwiththerepresentationwhentheclients  1  haveagreef  g ,afterbeingproperlyinformed,thatthelawyerwillkeepcertaininformation    confidential.       [21]Subjecttotheabovelimitations,eachclientinthejointrepresentationhastheright   toloyalanddiligentrepresentationandtheprotectionofRule1.9concerningtheobligationstoa n  formerclient.EachclientalsohastherighttodischargethelawyerasstatedinRule1.16. W     RelationtoOtherRules )y  1  [22]Whenalawyerrepresentsaclientinapartisanrole,whetherasanadvocate,an L advisor,ortheauthorofalegalopiniontoberenderedonbehalfoftheclientforusebyathird 5 person,thisruleprovidesspecialprotectionsfortheclienttoassurethatthelawyersloyaltywill  notbedilutedbyinterestsofotherclientsorinterestsofthelawyerorthirdpersons.Thisrule,  however,isnotapplicablef  g Ԁtof  g Ԁconflictsofinterestaffectingf  g Ԁclientsthelawyerundertakestoserve  asanintermediary.#X XX2X ѻ#f  g f  g If,forexample,businesspersonsormembersofafamilyareseekingthe  lawyersadviceorassistanceinanonadversarialefforttoaccomplishacommonobjectivewith r respecttotheformation,conduct,modificationorterminationofaconsensualrelationbetween [ them,suchastheformationofabusinessorapurchaseorsaleofproperty,Rule2.2applies. D Similarly,iftheeffectuationofanestateplanorothergratuitoustransferentailstheformation, -} modificationorterminationofaconsensuallegalrelationshipbetweenclients,andthelawyer f actsasanintermediaryinconnectionwiththetransaction,Rule2.2applies.Otherwise,thisRule O applies.2X XXX f  g Noristhisruleapplicabletof  g conflictsofinterestaffectingf  g partiestoadisputewhof  g Ԁa  8 lawyerundertakestoserveasadisputeresolutionneutral.SeeRule2.4. !!     _DEFINITIONAL_ԀCROSSREFERENCES #"   ReasonablyBelievesSeeRule1.0(j) v% $  ConsentsinWritingSeeRule1.0(b) _&!%  ConsultationSeeRule1.0(c) H'"&  MateriallySeeRule1.0(g) 1(#'    COMMITTEENOTES *S%) ComparisonToCurrentTennesseeEthicsRules  +''+ Ї  _DR_Ԁ5-101(_A_)_provides_Ԁ_that_,"[_e]xcept_Ԁ_with_Ԁ_the_Ԁ_consent_Ԁ_of_Ԁhisclientafterfulldisclosure,a  lawyershallnotacceptemploymentiftheexerciseofhisprofessionaljudgmentonbehalfofthe  clientwillbeorreasonablymaybeaffectedbyhisownfinancial,business,property,orpersonal  interests."DR5105(A)providesthatalawyer"shalldeclineprofferedemploymentifthe k exerciseofhisindependentprofessionaljudgmentinbehalfofaclientwillbeorislikelytobe T adverselyaffectedbytheacceptanceoftheprofferedemployment,orifitwouldbelikelyto =  involvehiminrepresentingdifferinginterests,excepttotheextentpermittedunderDR & v 5-105(C)."DR5-105(C)providesthat"alawyermayrepresentmultipleclientsifitisobvious  _ thathecanadequatelyrepresenttheinterestofeachandifeachconsentstotherepresentation  H afterfulldisclosureofthepossibleeffectofsuchrepresentationontheexerciseofhis  1  independentprofessionaljudgmentonbehalfoneach."    g _Comparison_Ԁ_To_Ԁ_ABA_ԀModelRules      Tf  g heProposedRuleisidenticaltoABAModelRule1.7,exceptforitsrequirementof q  writtenconsentstowaiveconflictsofinterest. Z  f  g f  g ChangesMadeto1997CommitteePreliminaryDraftInResponsetoComments  ,| #X XX2X Ѯ#f    Paragraph(a):ThecrossreferencetoRule2.2wasdropped.Therelationshipbetween Q Rule1.7andRule2.2isdiscussedintheComment. :   Comment[6]hasbeenaddedtoclarifythattheRuledoesnotprecludegovernment   clientsfromgivingconsenttoarepresentationinvolvingaconflictofinterest.    Comment[7]hasbeenaddedtoexplaintherequirementthattheclientsconsenttoa w conflictofinterestbeinwriting. ` 2X XXX f  g   Comments[18]through[21]wereaddedtoexplaintherelationshipbetweenthe 2 confidentialitydutiesinRule1.6andtheconflictofinterestrules. k #X XX2X с"# CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges  = Made 2X XXX  !'  f  #X XX2X $#  1.Inresponse_to_Ԁ_suggestions_Ԁ_from_ԀtheTBATax,Probate,andTrustLawSection,the #" CommitteeproposeschangestoComments[15],[18],and[22]forthepurposeofclarifyingthe $# applicabilityofthisRuletothejointrepresentationoffamilymembersandexplainingthe |% $ relationshipbetweenRule1.7,whichisapplicabletoajointrepresentationinconnectionwitha e&!% gratuitoustransfer,andRule2.2,whichisapplicabletoquidproquoexchangesbetweenclients N'"& whoarejointlyrepresentedbyasinglelawyeractingasanintermediarybetweentheclients. 7(#'   2.TheCommitteeproposesamodificationtoComment[20]forthepurposeofclarifying  *Y%) thatthewaiverofconfidentialitythatisnormallyaprerequisiteforajointrepresentationcanbe *B&* revokedatanytimepriortoalawyersdisclosure,thatthelawyerwillberequiredtorespectthe ++'+ demandforconfidentiality,andthat,insuchasituation,thelawyerwillnormallyhaveto  withdrawfromthejointrepresentation.ThischangeconfirmstherejectionbytheCommitteeof  arequestfromtheTBATax,Probate,andTrustLawSectionforamodificationofComment  [20]toindicatethataclientswaiverofconfidentialityinconnectionwithajointrepresentation k isirrevocable.AlthoughrecognizingthatclientscanwaivetheprotectionsofRule1.6,the T Committeebelievesthatconfidentialityistooimportanttoallow,muchlessrequire,irrevocable =  waivers.Also,suchirrevocablewaiversshouldnotbepermittedbecauseitisunlikelythatthe & v clientwillbeableatthetimeofthewaivertoforeseeallfuturecircumstancesinwhichthe  _ waivermightadverselyaffecthis/herinterests.TheCommitteesviewisconsistentwithits  H positionthatclientsmustretainthepowertorevokeauthoritytheyhavepreviouslygivena  1  lawyertotakeactionontheirbehalf.SeeRule1.2,Comment[4].      3.TheBoardofProfessionalResponsibilityhasaskedtheCourttoamendparagraphs(a)   and(b)sothatalawyermaynotaskaclienttoconsenttoaconflictofinterestunless itis   obviousthattherelationshipwiththeclientortherepresentationwillnotbeaffectedbythe n  conflictofinterest.ThisisthestandardcurrentlyusedinDR5105(C).TheCommittees W  proposalpermitsthelawyertoseekclientconsentifthelawyer reasonablybelievesthatthe @ relationshipwiththeclientortherepresentationwillnotbeadverselyaffected. Reasonably )y believesisadefinedtermanddenotesthatthelawyerbelievesthematterinquestionandthat b thecircumstancesaresuchthatthebeliefisreasonable.SeeRule1.0(j).Reasonablenessis K determinedfromtheperspectiveofareasonablyprudentandcompetentlawyer._See_Ԁ_Rule_Ԁ1.0(_i_). 4 ЀTheBoardarguesthatitsversionis clearer, moreenforceable,and moreprotectiveofthe  publicinterest.TheCommitteerespectfullydisagrees.    TheBoardsproposalwouldcreateconfusion,ratherthanaddclarity,becauseitwould  introduceanew,undefinedtermintoadocumentthatemploysaninterrelatedsetofdefined q termsto_specify_Ԁ_the_Ԁ _scienter__element_Ԁ_in_Ԁtheeachoftherules.Also,asProposedRule1.7has Z beenverywidelyadoptedbyotherjurisdictions,thechangeproposedbytheBoardwouldbe C inconsistentwiththeCommitteesgoalofpromoting_uniformity_Ԁ_among_Ԁ_state_Ԁ_ethics_Ԁ_rules_.This ,| needforuniformityisparticularlyacutewithrespecttothiscentralconflictofinterestrule.With e respecttoeaseofenforcement,theCommitteedoesnotseehowitwillbeeasiertoprovewhatis N obvioustoareasonablelawyerthatitwillbetoprovewhatareasonablelawyerwouldconclude  7 underthecircumstances.Ineithercase,theCourtmustdeterminewhatthereasonablelawyer !   wouldascertainunderthecircumstances.Thatonestandardmaybestricterthantheotherdoes " ! notmeanthatitwillbeeasiertoprovethatthestandardhasbeenviolated.Finally,withrespect #" totheBoardsargumentthatitsproposalwillbe moreprotectiveofthepublic,theCommittee $# acknowledgesthatProposedRule1.7willpermitclientstogivetheirconsenttoajoint t% $ representationinsomecircumstancesinwhichtheywouldnotbeallowedtodosoiftheBoards ]&!% proposalwereadopted.Suchaddedprotection,however,comesatahighprice.Thepriceisthe F'"& restrictionontheclientsfreedomtoretaincounseloftheirchoice.TheCommitteebelievesthat /(#' _that_ԀProposedRule1.7,withitsfocusonthelawyersreasonablebeliefthatneitherthe )h$( relationshipwiththeclientnortherepresentationwillbeadverselyaffected,affordsclientsthe *Q%) protectiontheyneedwithoutundulyrestrictingtheirfreedomtoconsent,afterconsultation,toa *:&* representationaffectedbyaconflictofinterest. +#'+ Ї  4.TheAttorneyGeneralhasvoicedconcernthatRule1.7maybeinconsistentwithhis  statutoryresponsibilitieswithrespecttotherepresentationoftheState,itsagencies,andofficers.  TheCommitteebelievesthatithasadequatelyaddressedthisissuebyitsrevisionofScope,  Paragraph[4],andthattheissueofwhethertheAttorneyGeneralisauthorizedbylawto k representstateagenciesandemployeeswhentheconflictofinterestruleswouldprohibitother T lawyersfromdoingsoshouldberesolvedasamatteroflaw,ratherthanbycreatingexceptions =  intheethicsrules. & v   5.TheTennesseeDistrictAttorneysGeneralConferenceandtheUnitedStatesAttorneys  H haverequestedthatanewparagraph(c)toaddedtoRule1.7thatwouldprohibitthe  1  representationofmorethanoneclientinacriminalcaseunlessthelawyeraffirmativelyshowsto    thetribunalthatnoconflictexistsorwillexist.AlthoughtheCommitteehasrecognizedin   Comment[9]that thepotentialforconflictofinterestinacriminalcaseissogravethat   ordinarilyalawyershoulddeclinetorepresentmorethanonedefendant,theCommitteeis   stronglyopposedtoconditioningsuchjointrepresentationonanaffirmativedemonstrationto n  thecourtthatthereisnoconflictofinterestornolikelihoodthataconflictofinterestwill W  materialize.Inthefirstplace,theimpositionofsuchaspecialdutyimpliesthatcriminaldefense @ attorneysarelesslikelythanotherlawyerstoconscientiouslycomplywiththeconflictof )y interestrules.TheCommitteedoesnotbelievethattobethecase.Second,itverydifficultto b affirmativelyproveanegativeproposition,andtodosothelawyerwouldhavetoprematurely K revealherdefensestrategyorotherinformationrelatingtotherepresentation.TheCommittee 4 doesnotbelievesthatitisappropriatetoforceacriminaldefendanttomakeachoicebetweena  jointrepresentationandtheprematuredisclosureofinformationrelatingthedefense.Third,if  thereisaneedforjudicialapprovalofjointrepresentationincriminalcases,theCommittee  believesthatsucharequirementshouldbeimposedbytheRulesofCriminalProcedurerather  thantheRulesofProfessionalConduct.Finally,formanyyears,theTennesseeSupremeCourt q haswiselyavoidedadoptingsuchperserulesconcerninglawyerconflictsofinterest,see,e.g., Z Statev.Jones(InreBanks),726S.W.2d515(Tenn.1987);InrePetitionof_Youngblood_,895 C S.W.2d322(Tenn.1995,anddecliningtoenshrinesucharuleoflawintheblackletterof ,| Tennesseesethicsruleswouldbeconsistentwiththistradition. e    7 2X XXX f  g    PROPOSEDRULE1.8  CONFLICTOFINTEREST:PROHIBITEDTRANSACTIONS   J ctJ (a)Alawyershallnotenterintoabusinesstransactionwithaclientorknowinglyacquirean n ownership,_possessory_,securityorotherpecuniaryinterestadversetoaclientunless: W   (1)thetransactionandtermsonwhichthelawyeracquirestheinterestarefairand ) y   reasonabletotheclientandarefullydisclosedandtransmittedinwritingtotheclient  b   inamannerwhichcanbereasonablyunderstoodbytheclient;and  K 0  (2)theclientisgivenareasonableopportunitytoseektheadviceofindependentcounsel    inthetransaction;and (#(# 0  (3)theclientconsentsthereto,inawritingsignedbytheclient. (#(# (b)Alawyershallnotuseinformationrelatingtorepresentationofaclienttothedisadvantageof Z  theclient,unlesstheclientconsentsafterconsultation,exceptasotherwisepermittedorrequired C byRule1.6orRule3.3. ,| (c)Alawyershallnotprepareaninstrumentgivingthelawyerorapersonrelatedtothelawyer N asparent,child,sibling,orspouseanysubstantialgiftfromaclient,includingatestamentary 7 gift,exceptwheretheclientisrelatedtothedonee.   (d)Priortotheconclusionofrepresentationofaclient,alawyershallnotmakeornegotiatean  agreementgivingthelawyerliteraryormediarightstoaportrayaloraccountbasedin  substantialpartoninformationrelatingtotherepresentation. t (e)Alawyershallnotprovidefinancialassistancetoaclientinconnectionwithpendingor F contemplatedlitigation,exceptthat: /     (1)alawyermayadvancecourtcostsandexpensesoflitigation,therepaymentofwhich  Q   maybecontingentontheoutcomeofthematter;and  : 0   (#(#   (2)alawyerrepresentinganindigentclientmaypaycourtcostsandexpensesof  " !   litigationonbehalfoftheclient. #" (f)Alawyershallnotacceptcompensationordirectionfromoneotherthantheclientunless: w% $   (1)theclientconsentsafterconsultation; I'"&   (2)thereisnointerferencewiththelawyer'sindependenceofprofessionaljudgment )k$(   orwiththeclient-lawyerrelationship;and *T%)     *=&*   (3)informationrelatingtorepresentationofaclientisprotectedasrequiredbyRule     1.6.  (g)Alawyerwhorepresentstwoormoreclientsshallnotparticipateinmakinganaggregate k settlementoftheclaimsoforagainsttheclients,orinacriminalcaseanaggregatedagreement T astoguiltyornolocontenderepleas,unless: =    (1)theclientisgivenareasonableopportunitytoseektheadviceofindependent   _   counselinthetransaction;and  H 0  (2)eachclientconsentsinwritingafterconsultation,includingdisclosureoftheexistence    andnatureofalltheclaimsorpleasinvolvedandoftheparticipationofeachpersonin   thesettlement. (#(# (h)Alawyershallnot: n    (1)enterintoanagreementwithaprospective,current,orformerclientto  @    ` prospectivelylimitthelawyersliabilitytotheclientformalpractice;and )y   (2)shallnotsettleaclaimforsuchliability,unless: K    ` (a)theclientisrepresentedinthematterbyindependentcounsel;or     ` (b)thelawyerfullydisclosesallthetermsoftheagreementtotheclientina     ` mannerwhichcanreasonablybeunderstoodbytheclient,advisestheclient     ` toseektheadviceofindependentcounsel,andaffordstheclientareasonable q    ` opportunitytodoso. Z (_i_)Alawyerrelatedtoanotherlawyerasparent,child,siblingorspouseshallnotrepresenta ,| clientinarepresentationdirectlyadversetoapersonwhomthelawyerknowsisrepresentedby e theother_lawyer,_Ԁf  g f  g unlessf  g Ԁtheclientf  g Ԁconsentsinwritingf  g Ԁafterconsultationregardingthe N relationship.  7   (j)Alawyershallnotacquireaproprietaryinterestinthecauseofactionorsubjectmatterof " ! litigationthelawyerisconductingforaclient,exceptthatthelawyermay: #" 0  (1)acquirealiengrantedbylawtosecurethelawyer'sfeeorexpenses;andt% $(#(# 0   (#(#   (2)contractwithaclientforareasonablecontingentfeeinacivilcase. F'"&   COMMENT )h$( .b  TransactionsBetweenClientandLawyer  *<&* jb +&'+   [1]Asageneralprinciple,alltransactionsbetweenclientandlawyershouldbefairand  reasonabletotheclient.Insuchtransactionsareviewbyindependentcounselonbehalfofthe  clientisoftenadvisable.Furthermore,alawyermaynotexploitinformationrelatingtothe  representationtotheclient'sdisadvantage.Forexample,alawyerwhohaslearnedthattheclient k isinvestinginspecificrealestatemaynot,withouttheclient'sconsent,seektoacquirenearby T propertywheredoingsowouldadverselyaffecttheclient'splanforinvestment.Paragraph(a) =  doesnot,however,applytostandardcommercialtransactionsbetweenthelawyerandtheclient & v forproductsorservicesthattheclientgenerallymarketstoothers,forexample,bankingor  _ brokerageservices,medicalservices,productsmanufacturedordistributedbytheclient,and  H utilitiesservices.Insuchtransactions,thelawyerhasnoadvantageindealingwiththeclient,and  1  therestrictionsinparagraph(a)areunnecessaryandimpracticable.      [2]Alawyermayacceptagiftfromaclient,ifthetransactionmeetsgeneralstandardsof   fairness.Forexample,asimplegiftsuchasapresentgivenataholidayorasatokenof   appreciationispermitted.Ifeffectuationofasubstantialgiftrequirespreparingalegal n  instrumentsuchasawillorconveyance,however,theclientshouldhavethedetachedadvice W  thatanotherlawyercanprovide.Paragraph(c)recognizesanexceptionwheretheclientisa @ relativeofthedoneeorthegiftisnotsubstantial. )y    LiteraryRights  K Oj  [3]Anagreementbywhichalawyeracquiresliteraryormediarightsconcerningthe  conductoftherepresentationcreatesaconflictbetweentheinterestsoftheclientandthe  personalinterestsofthelawyer.Measuressuitableintherepresentationoftheclientmaydetract  fromthepublicationvalueofanaccountoftherepresentation.Paragraph(d)doesnotprohibita  lawyerrepresentingaclientinatransactionconcerningliterarypropertyfromagreeingthatthe r lawyer'sfeeshallconsistofashareinownershipintheproperty,ifthearrangementconformsto [ Rule1.5andparagraph(j). D    PersonPayingforLawyer'sServices  f m  [4]Rule1.8(f)requiresdisclosureofthefactthatthelawyer'sservicesarebeingpaidfor  9 byathirdparty.SuchanarrangementmustalsoconformtotherequirementsofRule1.6 !"  concerningconfidentialityandRule1.7concerningconflictofinterest.Wheretheclientisa " ! class,consentmaybeobtainedonbehalfoftheclassbycourt-supervisedprocedure. #"    LimitingLiability  v% $ o  [5]Paragraph(h)isnotintendedtoapplytocustomaryqualificationsandlimitationsin K'"& legalopinionsandmemoranda. 4(#'    RelationshipsBetweenLawyers  *V%)  p *@&*   [6]Rule1.8(_i_)appliesto relatedlawyerswhoareindifferentfirms.Relatedlawyersin   thesamefirmaregovernedbyRules1.7,1.9,and1.10.ThedisqualificationstatedinRule1.8(_i_)  ispersonalandisnotimputedtomembersoffirmswithwhomthelawyersareassociated.See  Rule1.10. k    AcquisitionofInterestinLitigation  =  r  [7]Paragraph(j)statesthetraditionalgeneralrulethatlawyersareprohibitedfrom  ` acquiringaproprietaryinterestinlitigation.Thisgeneralrule,whichhasitsbasisincommon  I law_champerty_Ԁandmaintenance,issubjecttospecificexceptionsdevelopedindecisionallaw  2  andcontinuedintheseRules,suchastheexceptionforreasonablecontingentfeessetforthin    Rule1.5andtheexceptionforcertainadvancesofthecostsoflitigationsetforthinparagraph   (E).      _DEFINITIONAL_ԀCROSSREFERENCES o   u ConsentsinWritingSeeRule1.0(b) B  ConsultationSeeRule1.0(c) +{  Knowinglyand KnowsSeeRule1.0(f) d  Reasonableand ReasonablySeeRule1.0(_i_) M  SubstantialSeeRule1.0(l) 6     COMMITTEENOTES   w ComparisonToCurrentTennesseeEthicsRules      Paragraph(a):DR5-104(A)providesthatalawyer"shallnotenterintoabusiness ^ transactionwithaclientiftheyhavedifferingintereststhereinandiftheclientexpectsthe G lawyertoexercisehisprofessionaljudgmentthereinfortheprotectionoftheclient,unlessthe 0 clienthasconsentedafterfulldisclosure."_EC_Ԁ53statesthatalawyer"shouldnotseekto i persuadehisclienttopermithimtoinvestinanundertakingofhisclientnormakeimproperuse  R ofhisprofessionalrelationshiptoinfluencehisclienttoinvestinanenterpriseinwhichthe  ; lawyerisinterested." !$    Paragraph(b):DR4101(B)(2)similarlyprovidesthatalawyer shallnotknowinglyuse #" aconfidenceorsecretofaclienttothedisadvantageoftheclient. $#   TheCommitteerejectedaproposalthatwouldprohibitthelawyerfromusing a&!% informationrelatingtotherepresentationtotheadvantageofthelawyerorathirdperson.DR J'"& 4-101(B)(3),ontheotherhand,currentlyprovidesthatalawyershouldnotuse"aconfidenceor 3(#' secretofaf  g Ԁclientfortheadvantageofg thelawyerf  g ,orofathirdperson,unlesstheclientconsents )l$( afterfulldisclosure." *U%)   *>&*    Paragraph(c):Thereisnocounterparttoparagraph(c)intheDisciplinaryRules._EC_   5-5,however,statesthatalawyer"shouldnotsuggesttohisclientthatagiftbemadetohimself  orforhisbenefit.Ifalawyeracceptsagiftfromhisclient,heispeculiarlysusceptibletothe  chargethatheundulyinfluencedoroverreachedtheclient.Ifaclientvoluntarilyofferstomake k agifttohislawyer,thelawyermayacceptthegift,butbeforedoingso,heshouldurgethatthe T clientsecuredisinterestedadvicefromanindependent,competentpersonwhoiscognizantofall =  thecircumstances.Otherthaninexceptionalcircumstances,alawyershouldinsistthatan & v instrumentinwhichhisclientdesirestonamehimbeneficiallybepreparedbyanotherlawyer  _ selectedbytheclient."  H   Paragraph(d):Paragraph(d)issubstantiallysimilartoDR5-104(B),butrefersto    "literaryormedia"rights,amoregenerallyinclusivetermthan"publication"rights.     Paragraph(e):Paragraph(e)(1)issimilartoDR5-103(B),buteliminatesthe   requirementthat"theclientremainsultimatelyliableforsuchexpenses."Paragraph(e)(2)has n  nocounterpartintheDisciplinaryRules. W     Paragraph(f):Paragraph(f)g (1)f  g ԀissubstantiallyidenticaltoDR5-107(A)(1). )y   Paragraph(g):Paragraph(g)differsfromDR5106inthatitrequiresthatthelawyer K affordtheclientanopportunitytoconsultindependentcounselandthattheclientconsentin 4 writing.    Paragraph(h):Paragraph(h)(1)issimilartoDR6-102(A).Thereisnocounterpartinthe  DisciplinaryRulestoParagraph(h)(2).    Paragraph(_i_): ThereisnocounterparttoParagraph(_i_)intheDisciplinaryRules.In Z TennesseeFormalEthicsOpinion82F31,theEthicsCommitteeaddressedtheissueof_spousal_ F disqualificationwithintherubricofDR5105andheldthattherewasnopersedisqualification / ofmarriedlawyerswhowerenotpracticingtogetherfromrepresentingclientswithopposing h interests.Specialcircumstances,however,mightwarrantdisqualification,andsucha  Q disqualificationwouldbeimputedtootherlawyersinthedisqualifiedlawyersfirm.  :    Paragraph(j):Paragraph(j)issubstantiallyf  thesameasf  g ԀDR5103(A). " !  ComparisonToABAModelRules $# ̀   ProposedRule1.8isidenticaltoABAModelRule1.8,exceptasfollows: b&!%   Paragraph(g):Paragraph(g)differsfromABAModelRule1.8(g)totheextentthatit 7(#' requiresthatthelawyeraffordtheclientanopportunitytoconsultindependentcounsel.The  )p$( Committeebelievesthereissuchpotentialforconflictinaggregatesettlementsthatthisspecial  *Y%) proceduralsafeguardisneeded.f  ԀAlsotheclientsconsentmustbegiveninwriting.f  g  *B&*  ++'+   Paragraph(h):Paragraph(h)(1)differsfromABAModelRule1.8(h)inthatthelatter  permitsexculpationfromliabilityif permittedbylawandtheclientisindependently  representedinmakingtheagreement.Paragraph(h)(2)differsfromtheModelRuleinthatthe  latteronlyprohibitssettlementofamalpracticeclaimwithanunrepresentedcurrentorformer k clientf  Ԁ withoutg Ԁfirstadvisingthatpersoninwritingthatindependentrepresentationisappropriate T inconnectiontherewith. =   ChangesMadeto1997CommitteePreliminaryDraftInResponsetoComments  _     TheCommitteeaddedareferenceto directioninParagraph(f),precludingalawyer  3  fromacceptingeithercompensationordirectionunlessthelawyercomplieswiththe    requirementsoftheRule.     TheCommitteedeletedlanguageinParagraph(_i_)sothatitwouldconformtoABA   ModelRules1.8(_i_). p  #X XX2X ѸJ# CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges B Made 2X XXX  ,| #X XX2X ǒ#f    1.TheCommitteerecommendsmodificationofRule1.8(_i_)torequirethattheclientgive O writtenconsentasdefinedinRule1.0(b).ThisCommitteebelievesthatthistypeofconflictof 8 interestshouldbetreatedthesameasRule1.7conflictsofinterest. !   2.TheAttorneyGeneralhasvoicedaconcernthatParagraph(b)wouldpermita  governmentagencytoconsenttotheadverseuseofconfidentialinformation,andthatallowing  thegovernmenttodosoisinconsistentwiththeholdinginFormalEthicsOpinion81F4that u governmentalclientscannoteffectivelyconsenttoarepresentationinvolvingaconflictof ^ interest.TheCommitteedoesnotbelievethatsucharestrictionontherightsofgovernmental G clientsshouldbeimposedbytheRulesofProfessionalConduct.Indeed,inthisregard,the 0 CommitteewouldcalltheCourtsattentiontoRule1.7,Comment[6],whichstates: Inthe i absenceofotherlawtothecontrary,agovernmentofficialorentity,likeanyotherclient,may  R waiveaconflictinterestunderthisRule.TheCourtshouldsimilarlynotethatRule1.11  ; (SuccessiveGovernmentandPrivateEmployment)specificallypermitstheappropriate !$  governmentagencytoconsenttoaconflictofinterestinvolvingaformergovernmentlawyer. " ! Byexpresslyrecognizingtherightofgovernmentclientstogiveconsentonthesametermsas #" otherclients,theCommitteeintendedtooverruleanyFormalEthicsOpinionsthathaveheldto $# thecontrary.Asamatterofprofessionalethics,theCommitteeseesnojustificationfortreating x% $ governmentalclientsdifferentlythanotherclients.TheCommittee,ofcourse,recognizesthe a&!% powerofthegovernmenttoregulatetheconductofitsemployeesandtoprohibititsagenciesor J'"& officialsfromgivingconsentinsituationsinwhichotherclientsareallowedtodoso.Thepoint 3(#' issimplythatsuchrestrictionsshouldbeimposedbythegovernmentalclientorbyotherlaw )l$( enactedbytheGeneralAssembly,ratherthanbytheRulesofProfessionalConduct.Thus,the *U%) CommitteerecommendsnochangetoParagraph(b)thatwouldprecludeagovernmentalclient *>&* fromgivingconsenttoadisclosurethatotherwisewouldbeprohibitedbytherule. +''+ Ѐ  3.TheAttorneyGeneralhasalsovoicedaconcernaboutRule1.8(c),hispointbeingthat  itpermitslawyerstoacceptgiftsinsituationsinwhichitwouldbeacrimeforagovernment  lawyertoacceptthegift.Thattheethicsrulespermitalawyertoacceptagiftdoesnotstripthe k GeneralAssemblyofitspowertoprohibitagovernmentlawyerfromacceptingsuchagift.The T governmentlawyerwouldnotbeallowedtopleadtheethicsruleisdefenseofanindictmentfor =  violatingTenn.CodeAnn.3916102and104.Indeed,bycommittingsuchanoffense,the & v governmentlawyermayhaveviolatedRule8.4(b)thatprohibitsalawyerfromcommittinga  _ criminalactthatreflectsadverselyonthelawyershonesty,trustworthinessorfitnessasa  H lawyer.Thus,theCommitteeseesnoneedtomodifyitsproposal.  1    4.TheAttorneyGeneralhasvoicedconcernabouttheprohibitioninRule1.8(f)ona   lawyeracceptingdirectionfromoneotherthantheclientunlesscertainrequirementsaremet.   ThisissaidtoconflictwiththepoweroftheAttorneyGeneraltodirectassistantattorneys   generaltotakeactionovertheobjectionofanagencybeingrepresentedbytheassistant.The n  CommitteebelievesthatthisconcernisadequatelyaddressedinScope,Paragraph[4],andother W  law.Inaddition,theCommitteewouldnotcharacterizetheAttorneyGeneralasa personother @ thantheclientwithinthemeaningofRule1.8(f).TheAttorneyGeneralcanbeseenasa )y statutorilyauthorizedrepresentativewhospeaksfortheultimateclient,theState.Alternatively, b theAttorneyGeneralisthelawyerwithultimateresponsibilityfortherepresentationoftheState. K InneithercasewoulditbeappropriatetothinkoftheAttorneyGeneralasapersonotherthanthe 4 client.Heiseitherthealteregooftheclientorthelawyerfortheclient.Inneithercasewould  Rule1.8(f)beapplicable.Consequently,theCommitteeseesnoneedtomodifyitsproposal.2X XXX   f  g   f  g f  g     PROPOSEDRULE1.9  CONFLICTOFINTEREST:FORMERCLIENT  Ӏ il (a)Alawyerwhohasformerlyrepresentedaclientinamattershallnotthereafterrepresent n anotherpersoninthesameorasubstantiallyrelatedmatterinwhichthatpersonsinterestsare W materiallyadversetotheinterestsoftheformerclient,unlesstheformerclientconsentsin @  writingafterconsultation. ) y (b)Unlesstheformerclientconsentsinwritingafterconsultation,alawyershallnotknowingly  K representapersoninthesameorasubstantiallyrelatedmatterinwhichafirmwithwhichthe  4  lawyerformerlywasassociatedhadpreviouslyrepresentedaclientwhoseinterestsare    materiallyadversetothatpersonandaboutwhomthelawyerhadacquiredinformationprotected   byRules1.6and1.9(c)thatismaterialtothematterf  ;g f  g .f  g    (c)Unlesstheformerclientconsentsafterconsultation,alawyerwhohasformerlyrepresenteda q  clientinamatter,orwhosepresentorformerfirmhasformerlyrepresentedaclientinamatter, Z  shallnotthereafter: C   (1)useinformationrelatingtotherepresentationtothedisadvantageoftheformerclient e   exceptastheseRulesotherwisepermitorrequirewithrespecttoaclient,orwhenthe N   informationhasbecomegenerallyknown;or 7   (2)revealinformationrelatingtotherepresentationoftheformerclientexceptasthese     Rulesotherwisepermitorrequirewithrespecttoaclient.      COMMENT u ǯ   [1]Afterterminationofaclient-lawyerrelationship,alawyermaynotrepresentanother H clientexceptinconformitywiththisRule,exceptthatinthecaseofagovernmentorformer 1 governmentlawyer,Rule1.11applies,ratherthanparagraphs(a)and(b)ofthisRule. j   [2]Thescopeofa"matter"forpurposesofthisRulewilldependonthefactsofa  < particularsituationortransaction.Theappropriatenessofthesubsequentrepresentationwill !%  dependonthescopeoftherepresentationintheformermatter,thescopeoftheproposed "! representationinthecurrentmatter,anditsrelationshiptotheformermatter. #"   [3]Thecurrentmatterissubstantiallyrelatedtotheformermatterifthecurrentmatter y% $ involvestheworkthelawyerperformedfortheformerclientorthereisasubstantialriskthat b&!% representationofthepresentclientwillinvolvetheuseofinformationacquiredinthecourseof K'"& representingtheformerclient,unlessthatinformationhasbecomegenerallyknown. 4(#' @TT# ChangingSides  *V%)   [4]Representingonesideandthenswitchingtorepresenttheotherinthesamematter +)'+ clearlyimplicatesloyaltytothefirstclientandprotectionofthatclientsconfidences.Similar  considerationsapplyinnonlitigationmatters.Forexample,alawyernegotiatingacomplex  agreementonbehalfofasellercouldnotwithdrawandrepresentthebuyeragainsttheinterests  ofthesellerinthesametransaction.Further,justasalawyermaynorrepresentbothsides k concurrentlyinthesamecase,f  g seeRule1.7(a),thelawyeralsomaynotrepresentthem T consecutively. =    [5]Beyondswitchingsidesinthesamematter,theconceptofsubstantialrelationship  _ appliestolaterdevelopmentsarisingoutoftheoriginalmatter.Amatterissubstantiallyrelated  H ifitinvolvestheworkthelawyerperformedfortheformerclient.Forexample,alawyermay  1  notonbehalfofalaterclientattackthevalidityofadocumentthatthelawyerdraftedifdoingso    wouldmateriallyandadverselyaffecttheformerclient.Similarly,alawyermaynotrepresenta   debtorinbankruptcyinseekingtosetasideasecurityinterestofacreditorthatisembodiedina   documentthatthelawyerpreviouslydraftedforthecreditor.   @ ProtectingConfidentiality  W    [6]Thesubstantialrelationshipstandardisemployedmostfrequentlytoprotectthe *z confidentialinformationoftheformerclient.Asubsequentmatterissubstantiallyrelatedtoan c earliermatterifthereisasubstantialriskthatthesubsequentrepresentationwillinvolvetheuse L ofconfidentialinformationoftheformerclientinviolationoftherestrictionstheseRulesand 5 otherlawplaceondisclosure.Substantialriskexistswhereitisreasonabletoconcludethatit  wouldmateriallyadvancetheclientspositioninthesubsequentmattertouseconfidential  informationobtainedinthepriorrepresentation.    [7]Inquiriesconcerningtheexistence,exchange,andpotentialforuseofsuch r confidentialinformationmaythemselvesraiseconcernsanddifficulties.Aconcerntoprotecta [ formerclientsconfidentialinformationwouldbeselfdefeatingif,inordertoobtainits D protection,theformerclientwererequiredtorevealinapublicproceedingtheparticular -} communicationorotherconfidentialinformationthatcouldbeusedinthesubsequent f representation.Ontheotherhand,closedorincameraproceedingsmayimplicateissuesof O fairnesstootherparties.Further,theinterestsofsubsequentclientsalsomilitateagainst  8 extensiveinquiryintotheprecisenatureofthelawyersrepresentationofthesubsequentclient !!  andthenatureofexchangesbetweenthem " !   [8]Thesubstantialrelationshiptestattemptstoavoidrequiringactualdisclosureof $# confidentialinformationbyfocusinguponthegeneralfeaturesofthemattersinvolvedand u% $ inferencesastothelikelihoodthatconfidenceswereimpartedbytheformerclientthatcouldbe ^&!% usedtoadverseeffectinthesubsequentrepresentation.Theinquiryintotheissuesinvolvedin G'"& thepriorrepresentationshouldbeasspecificaspossiblewithouttherebyrevealingthe 0(#' confidentialclientinformationitselfor#X XX2X c#2X XXX Ԁconfidentialinformationconcerningthesecondclient. )i$( Nevertheless,thesubsequentclientsinterestinselectionofcounselofhisorherchoicerequires *R%) thatthelawyerbepermitted,withinappropriatelimits,todefeatanypresumptionorinference *;&* concerningthelawyersreceiptorexchangeofconfidentialinformation. +$'+ Ї  [9]Forexample,alawyerwhohasrepresentedabusinesspersonandlearnedextensive  privatefinancialinformationaboutthatpersonmaynotthenrepresentthatpersonsspousein  seekingadivorce.Similarly,alawyerwhohaspreviouslyrepresentedaclientinsecuring  environmentalpermitstobuildashoppingcenterwouldbeprecludedfromrepresenting k neighborswhosoughttooppose_rezoning_Ԁoftheproperty,butwouldnotbeprecluded,onthe T groundsofasubstantialrelationshipbetweenthetwomatters,fromdefendingatenantofthe =  completedshoppingcenterinresistingevictionfornonpaymentofrent. & v   [10]InformationthatmightbeconfidentialforsomepurposesundertheseRules(sothat,  H forexample,alawyerwouldnotbefreetodiscussitpublicly)mightnonethelessbesogeneral,  1  readilyobservable,oroflittlevalueinthesubsequentlitigationthatitshouldnotbyitselfresult    inasubstantialrelationshipbeingfound.Thus,alawyermaymasteraparticularsubstantive   areaofthelawwhilerepresentingaclient,butthatdoesnotprecludethelawyerfromlater   representinganotherclientadverselytothefirstinamatterinvolvingthesamelegalissues,ifthe   facts#X XX2X #2X XXX Ԁarenotsubstantiallyrelated.Alawyermightalsohavelearnedaformerclientspreferred n  approachtobargaininginsettlementdiscussionsornegotiatingbusinesspointsinatransaction, W  willingnessorunwillingnesstobedeposedbyanadversary,andfinancialabilitytowithstand @ extendedlitigationorcontractnegotiations.Onlywhensuchinformationwillbedirectlyin )y issueorofunusualvalueinthesubsequentmatterwillitbeindependentlyrelevantinassessinga b substantialrelationship. K    @ LawyersMovingBetweenFirms   Q  [11]Whenlawyershavebeenassociatedwithinafirmbutthenendtheirassociation,the  questionofwhetheralawyershouldundertakerepresentationismorecomplicated.Thereare  severalcompetingconsiderations.First,theclientpreviouslyrepresentedbytheformerfirm r mustbereasonablyassuredthattheprincipleofloyaltytotheclientisnotcompromised.Second, [ theruleshouldnotbesobroadlycastastoprecludeotherpersonsfromhavingreasonablechoice D oflegalcounsel.Third,theruleshouldnotunreasonablyhamperlawyersfromformingnew -} associationsandtakingonnewclientsafterhavingleftapreviousassociation.Inthis f connection,itshouldberecognizedthattodaymanylawyerspracticeinfirms,thatmanylawyers O tosomedegreelimittheirpracticetoonefieldoranother,andthatmanymovefromone  8 associationtoanotherseveraltimesintheircareers.Iftheconceptofimputationwereapplied !!  withunqualifiedrigor,theresultwouldberadicalcurtailmentoftheopportunityoflawyersto " ! movefromonepracticesettingtoanotherandoftheopportunityofclientstochangecounsel. #"   [12]Paragraph(b)operatestodisqualifythelawyeronlywhenthelawyerinvolvedhas u% $ actualknowledgeofinformationprotectedbyRules1.6and1.9(c)#X XX2X ѻ#2X XXX .Thus,ifalawyerwhilewith ^&!% onefirmacquirednoknowledgeorinformationrelatingtoaparticularclientofthefirm,andthat G'"& lawyerlaterjoinedanotherfirm,neitherthelawyerindividuallynorthesecondfirmis 0(#' disqualifiedfromrepresentinganotherclientinthesameorarelatedmattereventhoughthe )i$( interestsofthetwoclientsconflict.SeeRule1.10(b)fortherestrictionsonafirmoncealawyer *R%) hasterminatedassociationwiththefirm. *;&*  +$'+   [13]Applicationofparagraph(b)dependsonasituationsparticularfacts,aidedby  inferences,deductionsorworkingpresumptionsthatreasonablymaybemadeaboutthewayin  whichlawyersworktogether.Alawyermayhavegeneralaccesstofilesofallclientsofalaw  firmandmayregularlyparticipateindiscussionsoftheiraffairs;itshouldbeinferredthatsucha k lawyerinfactisprivytoallinformationaboutallthefirms'sclients.Incontrast,anotherlawyer T mayhaveaccesstothefilesofonlyalimitednumberofclientandparticipateindiscussionsof =  theaffairsofnootherclients;intheabsenceofinformationtothecontrary,itshouldbeinferred & v thatsuchalawyerinfactisprivytoinformationabouttheclientsactuallyservedbutnotthoseof  _ otherclients.  H     [14]Independentofthequestionofdisqualificationofafirm,alawyerchanging    professionalassociationhasacontinuingdutytopreserveconfidentialityofinformationabouta   clientformerlyrepresented.SeeRules1.6and1.9(c).      RelationtoOtherRules @  n     [15]ExceptinsituationsgovernedbyRule1.11,Rule1.9appliesinallcircumstancesin B whichalawyerhaspreviouslyrepresentedaclientasanadvocate,advisor,intermediary,or +{ authorofalegalopiniontoberenderedonbehalfofaclientforusebyathirdperson.Exceptas d providedinRule2.4,Rule1.9doesnotapplytopartiesbeingservedbyalawyerasadispute M resolutionneutral.If,however,thelawyer'sserviceasaneutralwillbemateriallyadversetoa 6 formerclientandthedisputeissubstantiallyrelatedtotheformerrepresentation,thelawyer  mustaffordtheformerclienttheprotectionsofRule1.9.     _DEFINITIONAL_ԀCROSSREFERENCES    ConsentsinWritingSeeRule1.0(b) ]  ConsultationSeeRule1.0(c) F  FirmSeeRule1.0(d) /  KnowinglyandKnownSeeRule1.0(f) h  Materialand MateriallySeeRule1.0(g)  Q  SubstantiallySeeRule1.0(l)  :   COMMITTEENOTES  " !  ComparisonToCurrentTennesseeEthicsRules $#    Paragraph(a):Thereisnocounterparttoparagraph(a)intheDisciplinaryRules,butitis b&!% consistentwiththeholdingsinTennesseeFormalEthicsOpinions81F5,81F9,84F65,and K'"& 86F104. 4(#'   Paragraph(b):Thereisnocounterparttoparagraph(b)intheDisciplinaryRules,butitis *V%)  consistentwithTennesseeFormalEthicsOpinion89F118whichpermitsalawyertorebuta *?&* presumptionthatthelawyerhadacquiredconfidentialinformationaboutaclientofalawfirm  withwhichthelawyerhadformerlybeenassociated. p      Paragraph(c):TheDisciplinaryRulesdonotspecifythedurationofthelawyersduties k topreserveclientconfidentialityandtorefrainfromusingconfidentialinformationtothe T disadvantageofaclient. =   ComparisonToABAModelRules   _   Rule1.9isf  g substantivelyf  g identicaltoABAModelRule1.9f  g ,exceptforf  g Ԁtherequirementin  4  Paragraphs(a)and(b)thattheclientgivewrittenconsenttowaiveaconflictofinterest.The    Comment,however,hasbeensignificantlymodifiedtoprovidemoreguidancetolawyerswhen   theyaredeterminingwhethertwomattersaresubstantivelyrelatedwithinthemeaningof   Paragraphs(a)and(b).    ChangesMadeto1997CommitteePreliminaryDraftInResponsetoComments Z    ThePreliminaryDraftwasrevisedsothattheRulewouldmorecloselyconformtothe .~ ModelRule.TheCommentswererevisedtoprovideadditionalguidanceforlawyerswhenthey g aredeterminingwhethertwomattersaresubstantiallyrelatedwithinthemeaningofParagraphs P (a)and(b). 9  #X XX2X #CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges   Made2X XXX    #X XX2X f#  ProposedRule1.9isidenticaltoABAModelRule1.9,exceptfortheProposedRules y requirementsofwrittenconsenttowaiveaconflictofinterest.TheBoardofProfessional b Responsibility,however,hasrecommendedtheadditionofanewParagraph(a)thatwould K incorporateintotheRulethedutytoformerclientsasstatedinFormalEthicsOpinions84F65 4 and86F104.TheCommitteebelievesthatthisadditionisunnecessarybecausetherestrictions m setforthintheFormalEthicsOpinionsarealreadyincludedintheProposedRule.Proposed  V Rule1.9(c)addressestheconfidentialityissueaddressedbyParagraph(a)(1)oftheBoards  ? proposal.Rule1.9(a),whichprecludesadverserepresentationin thesameorasubstantially !(  relatedmatter,clearlyprohibitsrepresentationinthecircumstancesaddressedbyParagraphs "! (a)(2)and(3)oftheBoardsproposal.TheCommentsprovidefurtherguidanceastowhentwo #" matterswillbedeemedtobesubstantiallyrelated.Also,becauseModelRule1.9hasbeen $# widelyadopted,addingthepeculiarwordingoftheFormalEthicsOpinionswouldbe |% $ inconsistentwiththeCommitteesgoalofpromotinguniformityamongstateethicsrules, e&!% particularlytheconflictofinterestrules.TheCommitteealsobelievesthatProposedRule1.9(a) N'"& providesformerclientsmoreprotectionthatdoesthenarrowerformulationintheEthics 7(#' Opinions.2X XXX    )p$( f  g #X XX2X z#2X XXX    *Y%)     PROPOSEDRULE1.10  IMPUTEDDISQUALIFICATION:GENERALRULE   # nc/#X XX2X #PX XXX (a)Exceptaspermittedbyparagraph(c),#X XXPX #PX XXX Ԁ#X XXPX T#PX XXX whilelawyersareassociatedinafirm,noneofthem m shallknowinglyrepresentaclientwhenanyoneofthempracticingalonewouldbeprohibited V fromdoingso#X XXPX ї#PX XXX ԀbyRules1.7,1.8(c),1.9(a),1.9(b),or2.2.#X XXPX Ѡ#2X XXX  ?  (b)Whenalawyerhasterminatedanassociationwithafirm,thefirmisnotprohibitedfrom  a thereafterrepresentingapersonwithinterestsmateriallyadversetothoseofaclientrepresented  J bytheformerlyassociatedlawyerandnotcurrentlyrepresentedbythefirm,unless:  3  0  (1)thematteristhesameorsubstantiallyrelatedtothatinwhichtheformerlyassociated   lawyerrepresentedtheclient;and (#(# 0   (#(#   (2)anylawyerremaininginthefirmhasinformationprotectedbyRules1.6and1.9(c) p    thatismaterialtothematter. Y    (c)Ifalawyerispersonallydisqualifiedfromrepresentingapersonwithinterestsadversetoa +{ clientofalawfirmwithwhichthelawyerwasformerlyassociated,otherlawyerscurrently d associatedinafirmwiththepersonallydisqualifiedlawyermaynonethelessrepresenttheperson M ifboththepersonallydisqualifiedlawyerandthelawyerswhowillrepresentthepersonon 6 behalfofthefirmactreasonablyto:    (1)identifythatthepersonallydisqualifiedlawyerisprohibitedfromparticipatingin    therepresentationofthecurrentclient;and  Ѐ s   (2)determinethatnolawyerrepresentingthecurrentclienthasacquiredanyinformation \   fromthepersonallydisqualifiedlawyerthatismaterialtothecurrentmatterandis E   protectedbyRule1.9(c);and .~   (3)promptlyimplementscreeningprocedurestoeffectivelypreventtheflow   P   ofinformationaboutthematterbetweenthepersonallydisqualifiedlawyer   9   andtheotherlawyersinthefirm;and !"    (4)advisetheformerclientinwritingofthecircumstanceswhichwarrantedthe  #"   implementationofthescreeningproceduresrequiredbythisruleandtheactions  $#   whichhavebeentakentocomplywiththisRule. v% $ (d)Adisqualificationprescribedbythisrulemaybewaivedbytheaffectedclientorformer H'"& clientundertheconditionsstatedinRule1.7. 1(#'    COMMENT  *S%)  Definitionof"Firm"  +&'+   [1]ForpurposesoftheRulesofProfessionalConduct,theterm"firm"includeslawyers  inaprivatefirm,andlawyersinthelegaldepartmentofacorporationorotherorganization,orin  alegalservicesorganization.SeeRule1.0(d)(defining Firmor LawFirm).Whethertwoor k morelawyersconstituteafirmwithinthisdefinitioncandependonthespecificfacts.For T example,twopractitionerswhoshareofficespaceandoccasionallyconsultorassisteachother =  ordinarilywouldnotberegardedasconstitutingafirm.However,iftheypresentthemselvesto & v thepublicinawaysuggestingthattheyareafirmorconductthemselvesasafirm,theyshould  _ beregardedasafirmforthepurposesoftheRules.Thetermsofanyformalagreementbetween  H associatedlawyersarerelevantindeterminingwhethertheyareafirm,asisthefactthatthey  1  havemutualaccesstoinformationconcerningtheclientstheyserve.Furthermore,itisrelevant    indoubtfulcasestoconsidertheunderlyingpurposeoftheRulethatisinvolved.Agroupof   lawyerscouldberegardedasafirmforpurposesoftherulethatthesamelawyershouldnot   representopposingpartiesinlitigation,whileitmightnotbesoregardedforpurposesoftherule   thatinformationacquiredbyonelawyerisattributedtotheother. n    [2]Withrespecttothelawdepartmentofanorganization,thereisordinarilynoquestion @ thatthemembersofthedepartmentconstituteafirmwithinthemeaningoftheRulesof )y ProfessionalConduct.However,therecanbeuncertaintyastotheidentityoftheclient.For b example,itmaynotbeclearwhetherthelawdepartmentofacorporationrepresentsasubsidiary K oranaffiliatedcorporation,aswellasthecorporationbywhichthemembersofthedepartment 4 aredirectlyemployed.Asimilarquestioncanariseconcerninganunincorporatedassociation  anditslocalaffiliates.    [3]Similarquestionscanalsoarisewithrespecttolawyersinlegalaid.Lawyers  employedinthesameunitofalegalserviceorganizationconstituteafirm,butnotnecessarily q thoseemployedinseparateunits.Asinthecaseofindependentpractitioners,whetherthe Z lawyersshouldbetreatedasassociatedwitheachothercandependontheparticularrulethatis C involved,andonthespecificfactsofthesituation. ,|     PrinciplesofImputedDisqualification  N b   [4]Theruleofimputeddisqualificationstatedinparagraph(a)recognizesthecommunity !!  ofinterestandsharedloyaltypresumedtoexistamonglawyerswhoareassociatedinlawfirm. " ! Paragraph(a)operatesonlyamongthelawyerscurrentlyassociatedinafirm.Whenalawyer #" movesfromonefirmtoanother,thesituationisgovernedbyparagraphs(b)and(c). $#    LawyersMovingBetweenFirms  _&!%   [5]Whenalawyerwhoisassociatedinafirmleavesthefirm,thequestionofwhethera 2(#' lawyershouldundertakerepresentationadversetoclientsoftheformerfirmismore )k$( complicated.Thereareseveralcompetingconsiderations.First,theclientpreviouslyrepresented *T%) bytheformerfirmmustbereasonablyassuredthattheprincipleofloyaltytotheclientisnot *=&* compromisedandthatconfidentialinformationrelatedtotherepresentationwillnotbeusedto +&'+ theclientsdisadvantage.Second,theruleshouldnotbecastsobroadlyastoprecludeother  personsfromhavingreasonablechoiceoflegalcounsel.Third,theruleshouldnotunreasonably  hamperlawyersfromformingnewassociationsandtakingonnewclientsafterhavinglefta  previousassociation.Inthisconnection,itshouldberecognizedthattodaymanylawyers k practiceinfirms,thatmanylawyerstosomedegreelimittheirpracticetoonefieldoranother, T andthatmanymovefromoneassociationtoanotherseveraltimesintheircareers.Iftheconcept =  ofimputationwereappliedwithunqualifiedrigor,theresultwouldberadicalcurtailmentofthe & v opportunityoflawyerstomovefromonepracticesettingtoanotherandoftheopportunityof  _ clientstochangecounsel.  H g   [f  g f  g 6f  g ]Paragraphs(a)and(b)governthevicariousdisqualificationofalawfirminthe    situationinwhichalawyerleavesthefirmandcontinuesorundertakestherepresentationofa   clientpreviouslyrepresentedbythefirm,thefirmisnolongerrepresentingtheclientand   lawyerswhohaveremainedinthefirmareaskedtoundertakearepresentationmaterially   adversetothefirmsformerclient.Ifthenewmatterissubstantiallyrelatedtoamatterinwhich n  thefirmpreviouslyrepresentedtheclient,thefirm,absenttheformerclientsconsent,willbe W  precludedbyparagraph(a)fromundertakingtherepresentationifanylawyerremaininginthe @ firmwouldbeprecludedbyRule1.9(a)fromdoingsobecausethelawyerhadparticipatedinthe )y clientspriorrepresentation.Alternatively,paragraph(b)precludesthefirmfromundertaking b therepresentationifanylawyerremaininginthefirmhasinformationprotectedbyRules1.6and K 1.9(c)thatismaterialtothematter.If,ontheotherhand,noremaininglawyerparticipatedin 4 theclientsrepresentationorpossessedconfidentialinformation,thefirmispermittedto  undertaketherepresentationeventhoughitismateriallyadversetotheformerclientina  substantiallyrelatedmatter.    [f  g f  g 7f  g ]Paragraph(c)addressesthesituationinwhichalawyerleavesonelawfirmandjoins q anotherfirmwhichisrepresentingaclientwithinterestsmateriallyadversetoaclientofthenew Z lawyersformerfirm.Thenewlawyermaybepersonallydisqualifiedfromparticipatinginthe C representationofsomeofthenewfirmsclientsbecauseofhispriorrepresentationofor ,| acquisitionofconfidentialinformationaboutclientsofhisorherformerlawfirm.Thispersonal e disqualificationwillnotbeimputedtootherlawyersinthepersonallydisqualifiedlawyersnew N firmiftheyactreasonablytoprotecttheconfidentialityinterestsofthepersonbeingrepresented  7 bythepersonallydisqualifiedlawyersformerfirm. !     [f  g f  g 8f  g ]Paragraph(c)setsforththemeasuresthatmustbetakeninorderprotectthe #" confidentialityinterestsoftheclientbeingrepresentedbythepersonallydisqualifiedlawyers $# formerfirm.Whetherafirmsscreeningproceduresareeffectivetopreventtheflowof t% $ informationaboutthematterbetweenthepersonallydisqualifiedlawyerandtheotherlawyersin ]&!% thefirmisaquestionoffact.Factorstobeconsideredinclude:awrittenaffirmationbythe F'"& personallydisqualifiedlawyerandthelawyersandfirmpersonnelhandlingthematterin /(#' questionthattheyareawareofandwillabidebythescreeningproceduresimplementedbythe )h$( firm,thestructuralorganizationofthelawfirmoroffice,thelikelihoodofcontactbetweenthe *Q%) personallydisqualifiedlawyerandthelawyershandlingthematterinquestion,andtheexistence *:&* offirmrulesandafilingsystemwhichpreventsunauthorizedaccesstofileswithrespecttothe +#'+ matterinquestion.AlthoughthisRuledoesnotrequirethatthepersonallydisqualifiedlawyerbe  prohibitedfromsharinginanyfeegeneratedbytherepresentationinquestion,suchaprohibition  canbeconsideredindeterminingtheeffectivenessofthescreeningproceduresemployedbythe  firm.Thequestiontobeaskedineachcaseiswhetherthescreeningmechanismeffectively k reducestoanacceptablelevelthepotentialformisuseofinformationrelatedtothe T representationofthepersonallydisqualifiedlawyersformerclient. =    [f  g f  g 9f  g ]Wherealawyerhasjoinedaprivatefirmafterhavingrepresentedthegovernment,the  _ situationisgovernedbyRule1.11(a)and(b).Wherealawyerrepresentsthegovernmentafter  H havingservedprivateclients,thesituationisgovernedbyRule1.11(c)(1).Theindividuallawyer  1  involvedisboundbytheRulesgenerally,includingRules1.6,1.7and1.9(c).       _DEFINITIONAL_ԀCROSSREFERENCES    ) Firmand LawFirmSeeRule1.0(d) o   Materialand MateriallySeeRule1.0(g) X   ReasonablySeeRule1.0(_i_) A  SubstantiallySeeRule1.0(l) *z     COMMITTEENOTES  M 0+ ComparisonToCurrentTennesseeEthicsRules        Paragraph(a):Thevicariousdisqualificationcalledforbyparagraph(a)whenalawyerin  thefirmispersonallydisqualifiedbyRules1.7,1.8(c),and2.2isconsistentwithDR5105(D).  Thevicariousdisqualificationcalledforbyparagraph(a)whenalawyerinthefirmispersonally u disqualifiedbyRule1.9isconsistentwiththeTennesseeethicsopinionscitedintheCommittee ^ NotestoProposedRule1.9. G   Paragraph(b):Thereisnocounterparttoparagraph(b)intheDisciplinaryRules. i   Paragraph(c):Paragraph(c),readinconjunctionwithRule1.9(b),isintendedtocodify  ; TennesseeFormalEthicsOpinion89F118(whichpermitstheuseofscreeningproceduresina !$  lawfirmthathashiredalawyerwhohadpreviouslybeenassociatedwithalawfirmandis " ! personallydisqualifiedfromrepresentinginterestsadversetoaclientofhisorherformerfirm) #"   Paragraph(d):DR5105(D)doesnotspecificallypermitaclienttoconsenttoa x% $ representationbyalawyerwhootherwisewouldbevicariouslydisqualifiedfromrepresentinga a&!% client. J'"&  ComparisonToABAModelRules  )l$(   Paragraph(a):ExceptforthecrossreferencetoParagraph(c),Paragraph(a)isidentical *?&* toABAModelRule1.10(a). +('+     Paragraph(b):Paragraph(b)isidenticaltoABAModelRule1.10(b).      Paragraph(c):ThereisnocounterparttoParagraph(c)intheABAModelRules. k   Paragraph(d):Paragraph(d)isf  similarf  g ԀtoABAModelRule1.10(g c),withtheclarifying =  additionof orformerclientf  g .f  g  & v  ChangesMadeto1997CommitteePreliminaryDraftInResponsetoComments   H   Paragraph(C)wasdeletedandParagraph(B)hasbeenrevisedsothatthisportionofthe    ProposedRulewillconformtoModelRule1.10.Theeffectofthechangeistoreversethe   Committeespositionwithrespecttotheappropriatenessofalawfirmusingscreening   procedureswhenalawyerleavesthefirm,someofthefirmsclientsgoalong,andthefirmnow   wantstorepresentanewclientwithinterestsmateriallyadversetoitsformerclientina o  substantiallyrelatedmatter.ModelRule1.10(b)permitssuchrepresentationonlyifnolawyer X  stillassociatedwiththefirmpossessesconfidentialinformationthatismaterialtothematter.If A anylawyerstillwiththefirmpossessedsuchconfidentialinformation,thefirmcouldnotprevent *z thedisqualificationbyscreeningthelawyer.Paragraph(C)wouldhavepermittedthelawfirm c toundertaketherepresentationadversetoitsformerclientifthefirmadequatelyscreenedthe L lawyerwhopossessedtheconfidentialinformationfromparticipationinthematter.Upon 5 reconsideration,theCommitteehasconcludedthatalawfirmsdutyofloyaltytoitsformer  clientsshouldprecludetherepresentationofanewclientwhenanylawyerstillassociatedwith  thefirmpossessesconfidentialinformationthatismaterialtothematter.  #X XX2X # CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges r Made 2X XXX  \   1.TheCommitteehasrevisedParagraphAsoitwillconformtotheABAModelRule. / Nochangeinsubstanceisintended. h #X XX2X 6;#X XXX   2.TheBoardofProfessionalResponsibilitysuggeststhatProposedRule1.10bereplaced  : withthesubstanceofDR5105(D).TheCommitteeopposesthisrecommendationasrelatesto !#  paragraph(a)becauseitisinconsistentwiththepolicyjudgmentreflectedinParagraph(a)that " ! thereshouldbenovicariousdisqualificationwhenalawyerisdisqualifiedfromrepresentinga #" clientbyRules1.8(_i_)or3.7(a).AsParagraph(a)trackstheModelRule,whichhasbeenwidely $# adopted,italsopromotesuniformityamongstateethicsrules.TheCommitteealsoopposesthe w% $ deletionofParagraph(b)becauseitaddressesanissuenotaddressedbyourcurrentRulei.e., `&!% theresponsibilitiesofalawfirmtoitsclientwhenalawyerinthefirmleavesandtheclient I'"& dischargesthefirmandretainstheserviceofthedepartinglawyer.Thisissuewillnotgoaway 2(#' becausetheRulesdonotaddressit.Finally,withrespecttoParagraph(c),whichcodifiesthe )k$( holdinginFormalEthicsOpinion89F118,theCommitteebelievesthatscreeningisofsuch *T%) importancethatitshouldbeaddressedintheRulesratherthaninanonbindingethicsopinion. *=&*  +&'+   3.Onitsownmotion,theCommitteerecommendsthedeletionofComments[6]and[7]  becausetheyarenotrelevanttoaninterpretationoftherule.Aswillbeexplainedbelow,  however,theCommitteeconcurswiththecriticismleviedinComment[7]attheuseof   appearanceofimproprietyasastandardofconductfortheviolationofwhichalawyercanbe k subjecttoprofessionaldiscipline. T   4.InlightoftheCourtsdecisionin_Clinard_Ԁv.Blackwood,46_S.W._Ԁ3d177(Tenn.2001), & v theCommitteecarefullyreconsidereditsproposaltopermitnonconsensualscreeningtoprevent  _ thevicariousdisqualificationofafirmincasesinwhichalawyermovesfromonefirmto  H anotherandthelawyerjoiningthefirmwouldbepersonallydisqualifiedbecauseofhisorher  1  involvementintheformerfirmsrepresentationofaclient.Inlightofthisreview,the    Committeerespectfully,butforcefully,urgestheCourttoapprovescreeningwherethe   personallydisqualifiedlawyerandtheotherlawyerswithwhomthepersonallydisqualified   lawyerpracticescomplywiththerequirementsofParagraph(c).Thisreflectsthejudgmentof   theCommitteethatscreeningshouldbepermittedevenonfactssuchasthoseofthe_Clinard_ n  case,solongasthelawyershavecompliedwithParagraph(c).Giventhesafeguardsafforded W  theformerclientbyParagraph(c),inparticulartherequirementthattheformerclientbe @ notifiedofthescreeningtheCommitteedoesnotbelievethatthereiseitheranappearanceof )y improprietyoramaterialriskofimpropriety.Tothecontrary,theimplementationofascreenin b compliancewithParagraph(c)evidencesastrongrespectforthelegitimateinterestsofthe K formerclient.Unlikethevicariousdisqualificationthatwouldotherwiseberequired,italso 4 accommodatestheveryimportantinterestoftheclientsofthelawyersnewfirminbeingableto  berepresentedbytheircounselofchoice.TheCommitteewouldalsospecificallycallthe  Courtsattentiontotherequirementthatthescreenbe effective,anobjectivestandardto  whichtheCourtmayreferasitassessestheproprietyofscreeninginindividualcases.The  CommitteebelievesitwouldbepreferablefortheCourttofocusontheeffectivenessofthe q screenratherthantheappearanceofimpropriety. Z   Thus,theCommitteehasspecificallyandconsciouslychosennottomodifyitsproposal ,| toprecludescreeningincertaincasesbecauseofan appearanceofimpropriety.Apartfrom e thequestionofwhethersuchastandardshouldbeusedinconnectionwithdisqualification N motions,theCommitteeisparticularlyconcernedaboutsubjectinglawyerstoprofessional  7 disciplineforappearancesofimpropriety.TheABAModelRulesexplicitlyrejectedtheuseof !    appearanceofimproprietyasabasisforimposingdisciplineonthegroundsthatitisquestion " ! beggingandaffordslawyersinsufficientguidanceastotheconductforwhichtheycanbe #" disciplined.EveniftheCourtweretoreaffirmitsdecisionin_Clinard_Ԁtouse appearanceof $# improprietyasastandardforrulingondisqualificationmotions,theCommitteedoesnot t% $ believethatitshouldbeincorporatedintotheRulesofProfessionalConductthatareusedasthe ]&!% basisforimposinglawyerdiscipline. F'"&   If,however,theCourtconcludesthattheRulesofProfessionalConductshouldpreclude )h$( theuseofscreeningonfactssimilartothoseof_Clinard_,theCommitteerecommendsthatthisbe *Q%) donebycraftinganarrowexceptionthatwouldprecludetheuseofascreenwhenthelawyer *:&* whohadswitchedfirmshadbeensubstantiallyinvolvedinanadjudicativeproceedingandthe +#'+ lawyersnewfirmwasrepresentingtheadversepartyinthatproceeding.Thiscouldbedoneby  addinganewParagraph(d)asfollowsandreletteringexistingParagraph(d)as(e).  0  #X XXX ><# (#(#    ` (d)Theproceduresinparagraph(c)maynotbeemployedwithouttheconsentof k   theclientofthepersonallydisqualifiedlawyersformerfirmifthepersonally  T 0  disqualifiedlawyerwassubstantiallyinvolvedintheformerfirmsrepresentationofthe @"  =  clientinconnectionwithapendingadjudicativeproceedinginwhichthelawyerscurrent & v firmrepresentsaclientdirectlyadversetotheformerfirmsclientintheproceeding. _(#(# 2X XXX    H f  g    PROPOSEDRULE1.11  SUCCESSIVEGOVERNMENTANDPRIVATEEMPLOYMENT   X aX= XXdXXd= (a)Exceptaslawmayotherwiseexpresslypermit,alawyershallnotrepresentaprivateclientin n connectionwithamatterinwhichthelawyerparticipatedpersonallyandsubstantiallyasa W publicofficeroremployee,unlesstheappropriategovernmentagencyconsentsinwritingafter @  consultation.Nolawyerinafirmwithwhichthatlawyerisassociatedmayknowinglyundertake ) y orcontinuerepresentationinsuchamatterunlessboththepersonallydisqualifiedlawyerandthe  b lawyerswhoarerepresentingtheclientinthematteractreasonablyto:  K   (1)ascertainthatthepersonallydisqualifiedlawyerisprohibitedfromparticipatingin      therepresentationofthecurrentclient;and     (2)determinethatnolawyerrepresentingtheclienthasacquiredanymaterial      confidentialgovernmentinformationrelatingtothematter;and q    (3)promptlyimplementscreeningprocedurestoeffectivelypreventtheflow  C   ofinformationaboutthematterbetweenthepersonallydisqualifiedlawyer  ,|   andotherlawyersinthefirm;and e   (4)advisethegovernmentagencyinwritingofthecircumstanceswhichwarrantedthe 7   utilizationofthescreeningproceduresrequiredbythisruleandtheactionswhich    0  havebeentakentocomplywiththisrule. (#(# (b)Exceptaslawmayotherwiseexpresslypermit,alawyerhavinginformationthatthelawyer  knowsisconfidentialgovernmentinformationaboutapersonthelawyeracquiredwhenthe t lawyerwasapublicofficeroremployee,maynotrepresentaprivateclientwhoseinterestsare ] adversetothatpersoninamatterinwhichtheinformationcouldbeusedtothematerial F disadvantageofthatperson.Afirmwithwhichthatlawyerisassociatedmayundertakeor / continuerepresentationinthematteronlyifboththepersonallydisqualifiedlawyerandthe h lawyerswhoarerepresentingtheclientinthemattercomplywiththerequirementssetforthin  Q paragraph(a).  : (c)Exceptaslawmayotherwiseexpresslypermit,alawyerservingasapublicofficeror " ! employeeshallnot: #" 0  (1)participateinamatterinwhichthelawyerparticipatedpersonallyandsubstantially w% $ whileinprivatepracticeor_nongovernmental_Ԁemployment,unlessunderapplicablelaw `&!% nooneis,orbylawfuldelegationmaybe,authorizedtoactinthelawyer'ssteadinthe I'"& matter;or2(#'(#(# 0   (#(# 0  (2)negotiateforprivateemploymentwithanypersonwhoisinvolvedasapartyoras @ "  *T%) lawyerforapartyinamatterinwhichthelawyerisparticipatingpersonallyand  @  *=&* substantially,exceptthatalawyerservingasalawclerktoajudge,otheradjudicative +&'+ officerorarbitratormaynegotiateforprivateemploymentaspermittedbyRule1.12(b)  andsubjecttotheconditionsstatedinRule1.12(b).(#(# (d)AsusedinthisRule,theterm"matter"includes: k   (1)anyjudicialorotherproceeding,application,requestforarulingorother  =    determination,contract,claim,controversy,investigation,charge,accusation,arrestor & v   otherparticularmatterinvolvingaspecificpartyorparties;and  _ 0   (#(#   (2)anyothermattercoveredbytheconflictofinterestrulesoftheappropriate   1    governmentagency.      (e)AsusedinthisRule,theterm"confidentialgovernmentinformation"meansinformation   whichhasbeenobtainedundergovernmentalauthorityandwhich,atthetimethisruleis   applied,thegovernmentisprohibitedbylawfromdisclosingtothepublicorhasalegal n  privilegenottodisclose,andwhichisnototherwiseavailabletothepublic. W     COMMENT  )y Hl  [1]ThisRulepreventsalawyerfromexploitingpublicofficefortheadvantageofa L privateclient. 5   [2]Alawyerrepresentingagovernmentagency,whetheremployedorspeciallyretained  bythegovernment,issubjecttotheRulesofProfessionalConduct,includingtheprohibition  againstrepresentingadverseinterestsstatedinRule1.7andtheprotectionsaffordedformer  clientsinRule1.9.Inaddition,suchalawyerissubjecttoRule1.11andtostatutesand r governmentregulationsregardingconflictofinterest.Suchstatutesandregulationsmay [ circumscribetheextenttowhichthegovernmentagencymaygiveconsentunderthisRule. D   [3]Wherethesuccessiveclientsareapublicagencyandaprivateclient,theriskexists f thatpowerordiscretionvestedinpublicauthoritymightbeusedforthespecialbenefitofa O privateclient.Alawyershouldnotbeinapositionwherebenefittoaprivateclientmightaffect  8 performanceofthelawyer'sprofessionalfunctionsonbehalfofpublicauthority.Also,unfair !!  advantagecouldaccruetotheprivateclientbyreasonofaccesstoconfidentialgovernment " ! informationabouttheclient'sadversaryobtainableonlythroughthelawyer'sgovernment #" service.However,therulesgoverninglawyerspresentlyorformerlyemployedbyagovernment $# agencyshouldnotbesorestrictiveastoinhibittransferofemploymenttoandfromthe u% $ government.Thegovernmenthasalegitimateneedtoattractqualifiedlawyersaswellasto ^&!% maintainhighethicalstandards.Theprovisionsforscreeningandwaiverarenecessaryto G'"& preventthedisqualificationrulefromimposingtoosevereadeterrentagainstenteringpublic 0(#' service. )i$(   [4]Whentheclientisanagencyofonegovernment,thatagencyshouldbetreatedasa *;&* privateclientforpurposesofthisRuleifthelawyerthereafterrepresentsanagencyofanother +$'+ government,aswhenalawyerrepresentsacityandsubsequentlyisemployedbyafederal  agency.    [5]Paragraph(a)(2)doesnotrequirethatalawyergivenoticetothegovernmentagency k atatimewhenprematuredisclosurewouldinjuretheclient;arequirementforpremature T disclosuremightprecludeengagementofthelawyer.Suchnoticeis,however,requiredtobe =  givenassoonaspracticableinorderthatthegovernmentagencywillhaveareasonable & v opportunitytoascertainthatthelawyeriscomplyingwithRule1.11andtotakeappropriate  _ actionifitbelievesthelawyerisnotcomplying.  H   [6]Paragraph(b)operatesonlywhenthelawyerinquestionhasknowledgeofthe    information,whichmeansactualknowledge;itdoesnotoperatewithrespecttoinformationthat   merelycouldbeimputedtothelawyer.     [7]Paragraphs(a)and(c)donotprohibitalawyerfromjointlyrepresentingaprivate n  partyandagovernmentagencywhendoingsoispermittedbyRule1.7andisnototherwise W  prohibitedbylaw. @   [8]Paragraph(c)doesnotdisqualifyotherlawyersintheagencywithwhichthelawyer b inquestionhasbecomeassociated. K A XXdXXd7YA  [9]Intheabsenceofotherlawtothecontrary,agovernmentofficialorentity,likeany  otherclient,maywaiveaconflictofinterestunderthisRule.     _DEFINITIONAL_ԀCROSSREFERENCES   | ConsentsinWritingSeeRule1.0(b) [  ConsultationSeeRule1.0(c) D  FirmSeeRule1.0(d) -}  Knowinglyand KnowsSeeRule1.0(f) f  MaterialSeeRule1.0(g) O  ReasonablySeeRule1.0(_i_)  8  SubstantiallySeeRule1.0(l) !!     COMMITTEENOTES #" ~ ComparisonToCurrentTennesseeEthicsRules  v% $   ThefirstsentenceinParagraph(a)issimilartoDR9101(B),exceptthatthelatterused K'"& thephrase inwhichhehadsubstantialresponsibilitywhilehewasapublicemployee." 4(#'   ThesecondsentenceinParagraph(a)andParagraphs(b),(c),(d)and(e)haveno *V%) counterpartsintheDisciplinaryRules. *?&*   +('+ ComparisonToABAModelRules     TheProposedRuleisidenticaltoABAModelRule1.11f  g ,f  g Ԁexceptthatthestandardfor  screeningconformtothestandardinProposedRule1.10,ratherthanthoseinModelRule n 1.11(a)or(b). W  ChangesMadeto1997CommitteePreliminaryDraftInResponsetoComments  * z     g Comment[9]wasaddedasaclarificationf  g .f  Ԁ  M #X XX2X ?X# CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges    Made 2X XXX    #X XX2X #f    ConsistentwithitsrecommendationwithrespecttoProposedRule1.10,theBoardof   ProfessionalResponsibilityhasaskedtheCourttodeletethatportionofProposedRule1.11that u  specifiesthecircumstancesinwhichscreeningcanbeusedtoavoidthevicarious ^  disqualificationoftheformergovernmentlawyersnewlawfirm.Again,theCommittee G believesthatscreeningshouldbeaddressedintheRule,ratherthaninanethicsopinion,andthat 0 theRuleshouldspecifythecircumstancesinwhichscreeningwillbepermitted.Also,such i departurefromthatABAModelRule,whichasbeenwidelyadopted,isinconsistentwiththe R Committeesgoalofpromotinguniformityamongstateethicsrules.  ;     PROPOSEDRULE1.12  FORMERJUDGEORARBITRATOR    er= XXdXXd=(a)Exceptasstatedinparagraph(d),alawyershallnotrepresentanyoneinconnectionwitha m matterinwhichthelawyerparticipatedpersonallyandsubstantiallyasajudgeorother V adjudicativeofficer,arbitratororlawclerktosuchaperson,unlessallpartiestotheproceeding ?  consentafterconsultation,inawritingorwritingssignedbyallparties. ( x (b)Alawyershallnotnegotiateforemploymentwithanypersonwhoisinvolvedasapartyoras  J lawyerforapartyinamatterinwhichthelawyerisparticipatingpersonallyandsubstantiallyas  3  ajudgeorotheradjudicativeofficer,orarbitrator.Alawyerservingasalawclerktoajudge,    otheradjudicativeofficerorarbitratormaynegotiateforemploymentwithapartyorlawyer   involvedinamatterinwhichtheclerkisparticipatingpersonallyandsubstantially,butonly   afterthelawyerhasnotifiedthejudge,otheradjudicativeofficerorarbitrator.   (c)Ifalawyerisdisqualifiedbyparagraph(a),nolawyerinafirmwithwhichthatlawyeris Y  associatedmayknowinglyundertakeorcontinuerepresentationinthematterunlessboththe B disqualifiedlawyerandthelawyersrepresentingtheclientinthematterhavecompliedwiththe +{ requirementssetforthinRule1.11(a)(1),(2)and(3)andadvisetheappropriatetribunalin d writingofthecircumstanceswhichwarrantedtheutilizationofthescreeningproceduresrequired M bythisruleandtheactionswhichhavebeentakentocomplywiththisrule. 6 (d)Anarbitratorselectedasapartisanofapartyina_multimember_Ԁarbitrationpanelisnot  prohibitedfromsubsequentlyrepresentingthatparty.     COMMENT  s   [1]ThisRulegenerallyparallelsRule1.11.Theterm"personallyandsubstantially" F signifiesthatajudgewhowasamemberofamulti-membercourt,andthereafterleftjudicial / officetopracticelaw,isnotprohibitedfromrepresentingaclientinamatterpendinginthe h court,butinwhichtheformerjudgedidnotparticipate.Soalsothefactthataformerjudge  Q exercisedadministrativeresponsibilityinacourtdoesnotpreventtheformerjudgefromacting  : asalawyerinamatterwherethejudgehadpreviouslyexercisedremoteorincidental !#  administrativeresponsibilitythatdidnotaffectthemerits.ComparetheCommenttoRule1.11. " ! Theterm"adjudicativeofficer"includessuchofficialsasjudgesprotempore,referees,special #" masters,hearingofficersandother_parajudicial_Ԁofficers,andalsolawyerswhoserveaspart-time $# judges.A XXdXXdA w% $   [2]TheprovisionsofRule10oftheRulesoftheSupremeCourtofTennessee, I'"& concerningtheApplicationoftheCodeofJudicialConduct,providesthatapart-timejudge, 2(#' judgeprotemporeorretiredjudgerecalledtoactiveservicemaynot"actasalawyerinany )k$( proceedinginwhichthejudgehasservedasajudgeorinanyotherproceedingrelatedthereto." *T%) AlthoughphraseddifferentlyfromthisRule,thoserulescorrespondinmeaning. *=&*  +&'+    _DEFINITIONAL_ԀCROSSREFERENCES   ȗ ConsultationSeeRule1.0(c)   FirmSeeRule1.0(d) l  KnowinglySeeRule1.0(f) U  SubstantiallySeeRule1.0(l) >   TribunalSeeRule1.0(m) ' w    COMMITTEENOTES  I _ComparisonToCurrentTennesseeEthicsRules       Paragraph(a)issubstantiallysimilartoDR9-101(A),whichprovidesthatalawyer"shall   notacceptprivateemploymentinamatteruponthemeritsofwhichhehasactedinajudicial   capacity."Paragraph(a)differs,however,inthatitisbroaderinscopeandstatesmore s  specificallythepersonstowhomitapplies.ThereisnocounterpartintheDisciplinaryRulesto \  Paragraphs(b),(c)or(d). Withregardtoarbitrators,_EC_Ԁ520statesthat"alawyer[who]has E undertakentoactasanimpartialarbitratorormediator,...shouldnotthereafterrepresentinthe 1 disputeanyofthepartiesinvolved."DR9-101(A)doesnotprovideawaiverofthe j disqualificationappliedtoformerjudgesbyconsentoftheparties.However,DR5105(C)is S similarineffectandcouldbeconstruedtopermitwaiver. <  ComparisonToABAModelRules     TheProposedRuleisidenticaltoABAModelRule1.12,exceptthatithasbeenmodified  sothatthescreeningrequiredbythisruleconformstotherequirementssetforthinProposed z Rules1.10and1.11.UnlikeModelRule1.12,theProposedRuledoesnotprohibitthe c personallydisqualifiedlawyerfromsharingfinanciallyinfeesearnedbythefirmforhandling L thematterinwhichthelawyercouldnotparticipate. 5  ChangesMadeto1997CommitteePreliminaryDraftInResponsetoComments   W   g Comment(2)wasaddedforclarificationf  g . !*   CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges #" Made2X XXX  $# f    Nocommentsorchanges. f  g  j&!%   S'"&    PROPOSEDRULE1.13  ORGANIZATIONALCLIENTS   % er1(a)Alawyeremployedorretainedbyanorganizationrepresentstheorganizationactingthrough m itsdulyauthorizedconstituents. V (b)Ifalawyerforanorganizationknowsthatanofficer,employeeorotherpersonassociated ( x withtheorganizationhasengagedorisengagedinaction,hasrefusedorrefusestoact,or  a intendstoactorrefrainfromactinginamatterrelatedtotherepresentationthatisorwillbea  J violationofalegalobligationtotheorganization,oraviolationoflawwhichreasonablymight  3  beimputedtotheorganization,andislikelytoresultinsubstantialinjurytotheorganization,the    lawyershallproceedasisreasonablynecessaryinthebestinterestoftheorganization.In   determininghowtoproceed,thelawyershallgivedueconsiderationtotheseriousnessofthe   violationanditsconsequences,thescopeandnatureofthelawyer'srepresentation,the   responsibilityintheorganizationandtheapparentmotivationofthepersoninvolved,the p  policiesoftheorganizationconcerningsuchmattersandanyotherrelevantconsiderations.Any Y  measurestakenshallbedesignedtominimizedisruptionoftheorganizationandtheriskof B revealinginformationrelatingtotherepresentationtopersonsoutsidetheorganization.Such +{ measuresmayincludeamongothers: d     (1)askingreconsiderationofthematter; 6 0   `  (#(#   (2)advisingthataseparatelegalopiniononthematterbesoughtforpresentationto    appropriateauthorityintheorganization;and#X XX2X }#2X XXX   0   `  (#(#   (3)referringthemattertohigherauthorityintheorganization,including,ifwarrantedby s   theseriousnessofthematter,referraltothehighestauthoritythatcanactonbehalfofthe \   organizationasdeterminedbyapplicablelaw. E Ѐ(c)If,despitethelawyerseffortsinaccordancewithparagraph(b),thehighestauthoritythat g canactonbehalfoftheorganizationinsistsuponaction,orarefusaltoact,thatisclearlya  P violationoflawandislikelytoresultinsubstantialinjurytotheorganization,thelawyermay  9 withdrawinaccordancewithRule1.16andmaymakesuchdisclosuresofinformationrelatingto !"  theorganizationsrepresentationonlytotheextentpermittedtodosobyRules1.6and4.1. " ! (d)Indealingwithanorganization'sdirectors,officers,employees,members,shareholdersor $# otherconstituents,alawyershallexplaintheidentityoftheclientwhenitisorbecomesapparent v% $ thattheorganizationsinterestsareadversetothoseoftheconstituentswithwhomthelawyeris _&!% dealing. H'"& (e)Alawyerrepresentinganorganizationmayalsorepresentanyofitsdirectors,officers, )j$( employees,members,shareholdersorotherconstituents,subjecttotheprovisionsofRule1.7 *S%)  and2.2.Iftheorganization'sconsenttothedualrepresentationisrequiredbyRule1.7or2.2, *<&* theconsentshallbegivenbyanappropriateofficialoftheorganizationotherthantheindividual  whoistoberepresentedorbytheshareholders.     COMMENT k     TheEntityastheClient  >  Y  [1]Anorganizationalclientisalegalentity,butitcannotactexceptthroughitsofficers,  a directors,employees,shareholdersandotherconstituents.Officers,directors,employeesand  J shareholdersaretheconstituentsofthecorporateorganizationalclient.Thedutiesdefinedinthis  3  Commentapplyequallytounincorporatedassociations."Otherconstituents"asusedinthis    Commentmeansthepositionsequivalenttoofficers,directors,employeesandshareholdersheld   bypersonsactingfororganizationalclientsthatarenotcorporations.     [2]Whenoneoftheconstituentsofanorganizationalclientcommunicateswiththe p  organization'slawyerinthatperson'sorganizationalcapacity,thecommunicationisprotectedby Y  Rule1.6.Thus,bywayofexample,ifanorganizationalclientrequestsitslawyertoinvestigate B allegationsofwrongdoing,interviewsmadeinthecourseofthatinvestigationbetweenthe +{ lawyerandtheclient'semployeesorotherconstituentsarecoveredbyRule1.6.Thisdoesnot d mean,however,thatconstituentsofanorganizationalclientaretheclientsofthelawyer.The M lawyermaynotdisclosetosuchconstituentsinformationrelatingtotherepresentationexceptfor 6 disclosuresexplicitlyorimpliedlyauthorizedbytheorganizationalclientinordertocarryout  therepresentationorasotherwisepermittedbyRule1.6.    [3]Whenconstituentsoftheorganizationmakedecisionsforit,thedecisionsordinarily  mustbeacceptedbythelawyereveniftheirutilityorprudenceisdoubtful.Decisions s concerningpolicyandoperations,includingonesentailingseriousrisk,arenotassuchinthe \ lawyer'sprovince.However,differentconsiderationsarisewhenthelawyerknowsthatthe E organizationmaybesubstantiallyinjuredbyactionofaconstituentthatisinviolationoflaw.In .~ suchacircumstance,itmaybereasonablynecessaryforthelawyertoasktheconstituentto g reconsiderthematter.Ifthatfails,orifthematterisofsufficientseriousnessandimportanceto  P theorganization,itmaybereasonablynecessaryforthelawyertotakestepstohavethematter  9 reviewedbyahigherauthorityintheorganization.Clearjustificationshouldexistforseeking !"  reviewovertheheadoftheconstituentnormallyresponsibleforit.Thestatedpolicyofthe " ! organizationmaydefinecircumstancesandprescribechannelsforsuchreview,andalawyer #" shouldencouragetheformulationofsuchapolicy.Evenintheabsenceoforganizationpolicy, $# however,thelawyermayhaveanobligationtoreferamattertohigherauthority,dependingon v% $ theseriousnessofthematterandwhethertheconstituentinquestionhasapparentmotivestoact _&!% atvariancewiththeorganization'sinterest.Reviewbythechiefexecutiveofficerorbytheboard H'"& ofdirectorsmayberequiredwhenthematterisofimportancecommensuratewiththeirauthori 1(#' ty.Atsomepointitmaybeusefuloressentialtoobtainanindependentlegalopinion. )j$(   [4]Inanextremecase,itmaybereasonablynecessaryforthelawyertoreferthematter *<&* totheorganization'shighestauthority.Ordinarily,thatistheboardofdirectorsorsimilar +%'+ governingbody.However,applicablelawmayprescribethatundercertainconditionshighest  authorityreposeselsewhere;forexample,intheindependentdirectorsofacorporation.     RelationtoOtherRules  k   [5]Theauthorityandresponsibilityprovidedinparagraph(b)areconcurrentwiththe >  authorityandresponsibilityprovidedinotherRules.Inparticular,thisRuledoesnotlimitor ' w expandthelawyer'sresponsibilityunderRules1.6,1.8,1.16,3.3or4.1.Ifthelawyer'sservices  ` arebeingusedbyanorganizationtofurtheracrimeorfraudbytheorganization,Rule1.2(d)can  I beapplicable.Thelawyersrighttowithdrawfromtherepresentationofanorganizationalclient  2  inthecircumstancesspecifiedinparagraph(c)isinadditiontotherighttowithdrawinthe    variouscircumstancesspecifiedinRule1.16(b).      GovernmentAgency      [6]ThedutydefinedinthisRuleappliestogovernmentalorganizations.However,when Z  theclientisagovernmentalorganization,adifferentbalancemaybeappropriatebetween C maintainingconfidentialityandassuringthatthewrongfulofficialactispreventedorrectified, ,| forpublicbusinessisinvolved.Inaddition,dutiesoflawyersemployedbythegovernmentor e lawyersinmilitaryservicemaybedefinedbystatutesandregulations.Therefore,defining N preciselytheidentityoftheclientandprescribingtheresultingobligationsofsuchlawyersmay 7 bemoredifficultinthegovernmentcontext.Althoughinsomecircumstancestheclientmaybea   specificagency,itisgenerallythegovernmentasawhole.Forexample,iftheactionorfailureto   actinvolvestheheadofabureau,eitherthedepartmentofwhichthebureauisapartorthe  governmentasawholemaybetheclientforpurposesofthisRule.Moreover,inamatter  involvingtheconductofgovernmentofficials,agovernmentlawyermayhaveauthorityto t questionsuchconductmoreextensivelythanthatofalawyerforaprivateorganizationinsimilar ] circumstances.ThisRuledoesnotlimitthatauthority.SeenoteonScope. F    ClarifyingtheLawyer'sRole  h ,  [7]Therearetimeswhentheorganization'sinterestmaybeorbecomeadversetothoseof  ; oneormoreofitsconstituents.Insuchcircumstancesthelawyershouldadviseanyconstituent, !$  whoseinterestthelawyerfindsadversetothatoftheorganizationoftheconflictorpotential " ! conflictofinterest,thatthelawyercannotrepresentsuchconstituent,andthatsuchpersonmay #" wishtoobtainindependentrepresentation.Caremustbetakentoassurethattheindividual $# understandsthat,whenthereissuchadversityofinterest,thelawyerfortheorganizationcannot x% $ providelegalrepresentationforthatconstituentindividual,andthatdiscussionsbetweenthe a&!% lawyerfortheorganizationandtheindividualmaynotbeprivileged. J'"&   [8]Whethersuchawarningshouldbegivenbythelawyerfortheorganizationtoany )l$( constituentindividualmayturnonthefactsofeachcase. *U%)    DualRepresentation  +''+   [9]Paragraph(e)recognizesthatalawyerforanorganizationmayalsorepresenta  principalofficerormajorshareholder.     DerivativeActions  T   [10]Undergenerallyprevailinglaw,theshareholdersormembersofacorporationmay ' w bringsuittocompelthedirectorstoperformtheirlegalobligationsinthesupervisionofthe  ` organization.Membersofunincorporatedassociationshaveessentiallythesameright.Suchan  I actionmaybebroughtnominallybytheorganization,butusuallyis,infact,alegalcontroversy  2  overmanagementoftheorganization.      [11]Thequestioncanarisewhethercounselfortheorganizationmaydefendsuchan   action.Thepropositionthattheorganizationisthelawyer'sclientdoesnotaloneresolvethe   issue.Mostderivativeactionsareanormalincidentofanorganization'saffairs,tobedefended o  bytheorganization'slawyerlikeanyothersuit.However,iftheclaiminvolvesseriouscharges X  ofwrongdoingbythoseincontroloftheorganization,aconflictmayarisebetweenthelawyer's A dutytotheorganizationandthelawyer'srelationshipwiththeboard.Inthosecircumstances, *z Rule1.7governswhoshouldrepresentthedirectorsandtheorganization. c    _DEFINITIONAL_ԀCROSSREFERENCES 5  B KnowsSeeRule1.0(f)   ReasonablySeeRule1.0(k)   SubstantialSeeRule1.0(l)     COMMITTEENOTES \ gComparisonToCurrentTennesseeEthicsRules  0   ThereisnocounterparttotheProposedRuleintheDisciplinaryRules._EC_Ԁ518states  U that"f  g [f  g af  g ]f  g Ԁlawyeremployedorretainedbyacorporationorsimilarentityoweshisallegianceto  > theentityandnottoastockholder,director,officer,employee,representative,orotherperson !'  connectedwiththeentity.Inadvisingtheentity,alawyershouldkeepparamountitsinterests "! andhisprofessionaljudgmentshouldnotbeinfluencedbythepersonaldesiresofanypersonor #" organization.Occasionally,alawyerforanentityisrequestedbyastockholder,director,officer, $# employee,representative,orotherpersonconnectedwiththeentitytorepresenthiminan {% $ individualcapacity;insuchcasethelawyermayservetheindividualonlyifthelawyeris d&!% convincedthatdifferinginterestsarenotpresent." M'"&  ComparisonToABAModelRules  )p$(    TheProposedRuleisidenticaltoABAModelRule1.13exceptthatwehaveextended *C&* theapplicationofParagraph(b)topastaswellasfuturemisconductofaconstituentand +,'+ modifiedParagraph(c)addingacrossreferencetothedisclosuresofinformationrelatingtothe  representationthatarepermittedbyProposedRules1.6and4.1.   ChangesMadeto1997CommitteePreliminaryDraftInResponsetoComments k   Paragraph(c):AcrossreferencetoProposedRules1.6and4.1hasbeenaddedto ?  Paragraph(c).ThecrossreferenceisneededbecauseofchangesmadetoRule1.6topermit ( x disclosureofinformationnecessarytopreventaclientfromcommittingacrimeandtorectify  a substantialfinanciallossresultingfromaclientscommissionofacrimeorfraudinfurtherance  J ofwhichtheclientusedthelawyersservices.    3    Comment[5]:AsentencehasbeenaddedtoComment[5]clarifyingthattherightto   withdrawunderthecircumstancesspecifiedinParagraph(c)supplementstherighttowithdraw   inthevariouscircumstancesspecifiedinRule1.16(b).   #X XX2X ]# CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges Y  Made 2X XXX  C  #X XX2X у#  1.TheBoardofProfessionalResponsibilityhasrecommendedthedeletionofParagraph f (b),whichspecifiesalawyersdutiestoanorganizationalclientincircumstancesinwhichan O organizationalconstituentintendstoengage,isengaging,orhasengagedinconductthatis 8 detrimentaltotheclient.TheonlyspecificobjectionisthattheRulespecifiesthatoneofthe ! remedialmeasuresthelawyermightberequiredtotakewouldbetoadvisetheconstituentto   obtainaseparatelegalopinionforpresentationtoaproperauthoritywithintheorganization.  TheBoardvoicesaconcernabouttheconstituentobtainingaselfservingopinion.Thesimple  answertothisisthatthereferencetoasecondopinionisonlyanexampleofaremedialmeasure u thatmaybereasonableinsomecircumstances.Droppingthematterafteraconstituenthad ^ compoundedthemisconductbyseekingabogussecondopinionwouldnotsatisfyParagraph G (b)scorerequirementthatthelawyertakereasonableremedialactiontotheprotectthe 0 organization.Apartfromthisparticularresponse,however,theCommitteedoesnotagreewith i theBoardsmoresweepingrecommendationtodeleteParagraph(b).Itisextremelyimportant  R thatlawyersfororganizationalclientsbealertedtotheirobligationtotakereasonableremedial  ; actiontoprotecttheclientfrommisconductofitsofficersoremployees.Finally,becauseRule !$  1.13hasbeenwidelyadopted,leavingitunchangedisconsistentwiththeCommitteesdesirefor " ! uniformityamongstateethicsrules,andthisRuleprovidescrucial,neededguidancetolawyers. #"   2.TheBoardofProfessionalResponsibilityhasalsorecommendedthedeletionof x% $ paragraph(e).Paragraph(e)providesthatanorganizationslawyermayjointlyrepresentthe a&!% organizationandadirector,officeroremployeetotheextentpermittedbyRules1.7or2.2.The J'"& BoardbelievesthatpublicprotectionissacrificedbythewaiverincorporatedinParagraph(e). 3(#' ThisreflectsamisunderstandingofParagraph(e).Paragraph(e)doesnotwaiveanything,butit )l$( simplyservestorecognize(1)thatitisquitecommonforasinglelawyertojointlyrepresentan *U%) organizationandoneofitsconstituents,(2)thatsucharepresentationmayinvolveaconflictof *>&* interest,(3)thatsuchconflictsareberesolvedincompliancewithRule1.7or2.2,asthecase +''+ maybe,and(4)thatifclientconsentisrequired,theorganizationsconsentmustbesecured  fromanofficialotherthanthepersonwhowillbejointlyrepresentedbytheorganizations  lawyer.BydroppingParagraph(e),theCourtwouldnotchangetheconflictofinterestrules  applicabletothejointrepresentationoforganizationalclientsandtheirconstituents.Onthe k otherhand,Paragraph(e)helpfullyalertslawyerstothistypeofconflictofinterest,directsthem T tothepertinentrules,andappropriatelyrequiresthattheorganizationsconsentbegivenbya =  personotherthantheconstituentwhowillbejointlyrepresentedbytheorganizationslawyer. & v ThislatterpointwillbeunaddressedifParagraph(e)isdeleted.Thus,theCommitteesupports  _ itsretention.f  g   H 2X XXX     PROPOSEDRULE1.14  CLIENTUNDERADISABILITY    ,YM(a)Whenaclient'sabilitytomakeadequatelyconsidereddecisionsinconnectionwiththe m representationisimpaired,whetherbecauseofminority,mentaldisabilityorforsomeother V reason,thelawyershall,asfarasreasonablypossible,maintainanormalclientlawyer ?  relationshipwiththeclient. ( x (b)Alawyermayseektheappointmentofaguardianortakeotherprotectiveactionwithrespect  J toaclient,onlywhenthelawyerreasonablybelievesthattheclientcannotadequatelyactinthe  3  client'sowninterest.       COMMENT      [1]Thenormalclient-lawyerrelationshipisbasedontheassumptionthattheclient,when q  properlyadvisedandassisted,iscapableofmakingdecisionsaboutimportantmatters.Whenthe Z  clientisaminororsuffersfromamentaldisorderordisability,however,maintainingthe C ordinaryclient-lawyerrelationshipmaynotbepossibleinallrespects.Inparticular,an ,| incapacitatedpersonmayhavenopowertomakelegallybindingdecisions.Nevertheless,a e clientlackinglegalcompetenceoftenhastheabilitytounderstand,deliberateupon,andreach N conclusionsaboutmattersaffectingtheclient'sownwell-being.Furthermore,toanincreasing 7 extentthelawrecognizesintermediatedegreesofcompetence.Forexample,childrenasyoung   asfiveorsixyearsofage,andcertainlythoseoftenortwelve,areregardedashavingopinions   thatareentitledtoweightinlegalproceedingsconcerningtheircustody.Soalso,itisrecognized  thatsomepersonsofadvancedagecanbequitecapableofhandlingroutinefinancialmatters  whileneedingspeciallegalprotectionconcerningmajortransactions. t   [2]Thefactthataclientsuffersadisabilitydoesnotdiminishthelawyer'sobligationto F treattheclientwithattentionandrespect.Ifthepersonhasnoguardianorlegalrepresentative, / thelawyeroftenmustactasdefactoguardian.Evenifthepersondoeshavealegal h representative,thelawyershouldasfaraspossibleaccordtherepresentedpersonthestatusof  Q client,particularlyinmaintainingcommunication.  :   [3]Ifalegalrepresentativehasalreadybeenappointedfortheclient,thelawyershould " ! ordinarilylooktotherepresentativefordecisionsonbehalfoftheclient.Ifalegalrepresentative #" hasnotbeenappointed,thelawyershouldseetosuchanappointmentwhereitwouldservethe $# client'sbestinterests.Thus,ifadisabledclienthassubstantialpropertythatshouldbesoldfor w% $ theclient'sbenefit,effectivecompletionofthetransactionordinarilyrequiresappointmentofa `&!% legalrepresentative.Inmanycircumstances,however,appointmentofalegalrepresentativemay I'"& beexpensiveortraumaticfortheclient.Evaluationoftheseconsiderationsisamatterof 2(#' professionaljudgmentonthelawyer'spart. )k$(    [4]Ifthelawyerrepresentstheguardianasdistinctfromtheward,andisawarethatthe#X XX2X +#2X XXX  *=&* guardianisactingadverselytotheward'sinterest,thelawyermayhaveanobligationtoprevent   orrectifytheguardian'smisconduct.f  g f  g Seef  g f  g ԀRule1.2(f  g f  g df  g ).     DisclosureoftheClient'sCondition  k   [5]Rulesofprocedureinlitigationgenerallyprovidethatminorsorpersonssuffering >  mentaldisabilityshallberepresentedbyaguardianornextfriendiftheydonothaveageneral ' w guardian.However,disclosureoftheclient'sdisabilitycanadverselyaffecttheclient'sinterests.  ` Forexample,raisingthequestionofdisabilitycould,insomecircumstances,leadtoproceedings  I forinvoluntarycommitment.Thelawyer'spositioninsuchcasesisanunavoidablydifficultone.  2  Thelawyermayseekguidancefromanappropriatediagnostician.      EmergencyLegalAssistance     [6]f  Ԁg f  g Iff  g Ԁthehealth,safetyorfinancialinterestofapersonunderadisabilityisthreatened r  withimminentandirreparableharm,alawyermaytakelegalactiononbehalfofsuchaperson [  eventhoughthepersonisunabletoestablishaclientlawyerrelationshiportomakeorexpress D consideredjudgmentsaboutthematter,whenthedisabledpersonoranotheractingingoodfaith -} onthepersonsbehalfhasconsultedthelawyer.Eveninsuchg f  g asituationf  g ,however,thelawyer f shouldnotactunlessthelawyerreasonablybelievesthatthepersonhasnootherlawyer,agentor O otherrepresentativeavailable.Thelawyershouldtakelegalactiononbehalfofthedisabled 8 persononlytotheextentreasonablynecessarytomaintainthestatusquoorotherwiseavoid ! imminentandirreparableharm.Alawyerwhoundertakestorepresentapersoninsuchan   exigentsituationhasthesamedutiesundertheseRulesasthelawyerwouldwithrespecttoa  client.    [7]Alawyerwhoactsonbehalfofadisabledpersong f  g threatenedwithimminentand ^ f  g f  g f  g irreparableharmf  g Ԁshouldkeeptheconfidencesofthedisabledpersonasifdealingwithaclient, G disclosingthemonlytotheextentnecessarytoaccomplishtheintendedprotectiveaction.The 0 lawyershoulddisclosetoanytribunalinvolvedandtoanyothercounselinvolvedthenatureof i hisorherrelationshipwiththedisabledperson.Thelawyershouldtakestepstoregularizethe  R relationshiporimplementotherprotectivesolutionsassoonaspossible.Normally,alawyer  ; wouldnotseekcompensationforsuchf  g actionstakenonbehalfofadisabledperson. !$     _DEFINITIONAL_ԀCROSSREFERENCES #"   ReasonablySeeRule1.0(_i_) y% $  ReasonablyBelievesSeeRule1.0(j) b&!%    COMMITTEENOTES  4(#'  ComparisonToCurrentTennesseeEthicsRules  *W%)   *C&*   ThereisnocounterparttotheProposedRuleintheDisciplinaryRules._EC_Ԁ7-11states   thatthe"responsibilitiesofalawyermayvaryaccordingtotheintelligence,experience,mental  conditionorageofaclient.Examplesincludetherepresentationofanilliterateoran  incompetent."_EC_Ԁ7-12statesthat"anymentalorphysicalconditionofaclientthatrendershim k incapableofmakingaconsideredjudgmentonhisownbehalfcastsadditionalresponsibilities T uponhislawyer.Whereanincompetentisactingthroughaguardianorotherlegal =  representative,alawyermustlooktosuchrepresentativeforthosedecisionswhicharenormally & v theprerogativeoftheclienttomake.Ifaclientunderdisabilityhasnolegalrepresentative,his  _ lawyermaybecompelledincourtproceedingstomakedecisionsonbehalfoftheclient.Ifthe  H clientiscapableofunderstandingthematterinquestionorofcontributingtotheadvancementof  1  hisinterests,regardlessofwhetherheislegallydisqualifiedfromperformingcertainacts,the    lawyershouldobtainfromhimallpossibleaid.Ifthedisabilityofaclientandthelackofalegal   representativecompelthelawyertomakedecisionsforhisclient,thelawyershouldconsiderall   circumstancesthenprevailingandactwithcaretosafeguardandadvancetheinterestsofhis   client.Butobviouslyalawyercannotperformanyactormakeanydecisionwhichthelaw n  requireshisclienttoperformormake,eitheractingforhimselfifcompetent,orbyaduly W  constitutedrepresentativeiflegallyincompetent. @  ComparisonToABAModelRules b    TheProposedRuleisidenticaltof  ABAf  g ԀModelRule1.14. 6  ChangesMadeto1997CommitteePreliminaryDraftInResponsetoComments        Nochanges.  #X XX2X 7# CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges ^ Made 2X XXX  H #X XX2X P#f    1.InresponsetoaCommentfromtheTBATax,ProbateandTrustLawSection,the k CommitteerecommendsthereplacementofthereferencesinComments[6]and[7]toan  T  emergencywithamoredirectreferencetosituationsinwhichtheimpairedclientisthreatened  = withimminentandirreparableharmtohisorherhealth,safetyorfinancialinterests.The !&  Sectionwasconcernedthatthereferencetoan emergencymightbereadtoimposerestrictions "! otherthanthattherebeathreatofimminentandirreparableharm.Othersthoughtthereference #" toanemergencywasredundant.TheCommitteeagreeswiththeSectionthatalawyershouldbe $# allowedtotakeprotectiveactionwhennecessarytopreventimminentandirreparableharmtoa z% $ client,withoutanyotherlimitationsthatmightbeinferredfromthereferencetoanemergency. c&!% Ѐ  2.TheBoardofProfessionalResponsibilityhasrecommendedthatRule1.14(b)be 5(#' modifiedtoclarifythatlawyersmayseekcourtapprovalforprotectiveactionsonbehalfof )n$( disabledclientswhenquestionsarisewhetherseekingprotectiveactionareappropriate.As *W%) proposedbytheBoard,Paragraph(b)wouldread: *@&*  +)'+    ` (b)Alawyermayseektheappointmentofaguardianorseekcourtapprovalto    takeotherprotectiveactionwithrespecttoaclient,onlywhenthelawyerreasonably    believesthattheclientcannotadequatelyactintheclient'sowninterest.  TheCommitteeopposesthisproposal.Inthefirstplace,theBoardsproposalisflawedbecause, T asdrafted,itrequiresthelawyertoseekjudicialapprovalpriortotakingprotectiveaction.Even =  ifredrafted,theCommitteeseesnoneedforsuchdetail.Simplystated,seekingjudicialapproval & v totakeaprotectiveactionisaprotectiveactionpermittedbyRule1.14(b)solongasthelawyer  _ reasonablybelievesthattheclientcannotadequatelyactintheclientsowninterest.Seeking  H judicialconfirmationofthelawyersjudgmentislikeconsultingwithanappropriate  1  diagnostician,asmentionedinComment[5].GiventhewidespreadadoptionofABAModel    Rule1.14,addingsuchunnecessarydetailisinconsistentwiththeCommitteesgoalof   promotinguniformityamongethicsrules.2X XXX    f  g  n     @@55"d PROPOSEDRULE1.15  @@]]!dSAFEKEEPINGPROPERTY    r''(a)Alawyershallholdpropertyandfundsofclientsorthirdpersonsthatareinalawyer's m possessioninconnectionwitharepresentationseparatefromthelawyer'sownpropertyand V funds. ?  0  (1)Fundsbelongingtoclientsorthirdpersonsshallbekeptinaseparateaccount  a maintainedinaninsureddepositoryinstitutionwhichislocatedinthestatewherethe  J lawyersofficeissituated(orelsewherewiththeconsentoftheclientorthirdperson)  3  andwhichparticipatesintheoverdraftnotificationprogramasrequiredbySupreme    CourtRule9.Alawyermaydepositthelawyersownfundsinsuchanaccountforthe   solepurposeofpayingbankservicechargesonthataccount,butonlyinanamount   necessaryforthatpurpose. (#(#   0 ` (_i_)Exceptasprovidedbysubparagraph(a)(1)(ii),interestearnedonaccountsin Y  whichthefundsofclientsaredepositedlessanydeductionforservicecharges, B feesofthedepositoryinstitution,andintangibletaxescollectedwithrespecttothe +{ depositedfundsshallbelongtotheclientswhosefundsaredepositedandthe d lawyershallhavenorightorclaimtosuchinterest.M` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#(ii)Alawyershalldepositfundsofclientsandthirdpersonsthatarenominalin  amountorexpectedtobeheldforashortperiodoftimeinapooledaccount @Y!  @Y! that  participatesintheInterestOnLawyersTrustAccounts("_IOLTA_")program,  whichprovidesthatallinterestearnedbepaidtotheTennesseeBarFoundationin  accordancewiththerequirementsofSupremeCourtRule.Thedeterminationof s whetherfundsarenominalinamountoraretobeheldforashortperiodoftime \ restsinthesounddiscretionofthelawyerandnochargeofethicalimproprietyor E otherbreachofprofessionalconductshallattendanattorneysexerciseofgood .~ faithjudgmentinthatregard.g` (#` (#    ` (iii)Alawyermaydeclinetoparticipateinthe_IOLTA_Ԁprogrambynotifying  9 0  0` (#(#theChiefJusticeoftheSupremeCourtandtheBoardofProfessional  @  !"  ResponsibilityaspermittedbySupremeCourtRule_____." !` (#` (# (b)Uponreceivingfundsorotherpropertyinwhichaclientorthirdpersonhasaninterest,a $# lawyershallpromptlynotifytheclientorthirdperson.Exceptasstatedinthisruleorotherwise v% $ permittedbylaworbyagreementwiththeclient,alawyershallpromptlydelivertotheclientor _&!% thirdpersonanyfundsorotherpropertythattheclientorthirdpersonisentitledtoreceiveand, H'"& uponrequestbytheclientorthirdperson,shallpromptlyrenderafullaccountingregardingsuch 1(#' property.Ifadisputearisesbetweentheclientandathirdpersonwithrespecttotheirrespective )j$( interestsinthefundsorpropertyheldbythelawyer,theportionindisputeshallbekeptseparate *S%) andsafeguardedbythelawyeruntilthedisputeisresolved. *<&*  +%'+ (c)Wheninthecourseofrepresentationalawyerisinpossessionofpropertyinwhichboththe  lawyerandanotherpersonclaiminterests,thepropertyshallbekeptseparatebythelawyeruntil  thereisanaccountingandseveranceoftheirinterest.     COMMENT T  7  [1]Alawyershouldholdpropertyofotherswiththecarerequiredofaprofessional ' w fiduciary.Securitiesshouldbekeptinasafedepositbox,exceptwhensomeotherformof  ` safekeepingiswarrantedbyspecialcircumstances.Allpropertyofclientsorthirdpersonsshould  I bekeptseparatefromthelawyer'sbusinessandpersonalpropertyand,ifmonies,inoneormore  2  trustaccounts.Separatetrustaccountsmaybewarrantedwhenadministeringestatemoniesor    actinginsimilarfiduciarycapacities.     [2]Lawyersoftenreceivefundsfromthirdpartiesfromwhichthelawyer'sfeewillbe   paid.Ifthereisriskthattheclientmaydivertthefundswithoutpayingthefee,thelawyerisnot o  requiredtoremittheportionfromwhichthefeeistobepaid.However,alawyermaynothold X  fundstocoerceaclientintoacceptingthelawyer'scontentioninadisputewiththeclient.The A disputedportionofthefundsshouldbekeptintrustandthelawyershouldsuggestmeansfor *z promptresolutionofthedispute,suchasarbitration.Theundisputedportionofthefundsshallbe c promptlydistributed. L   [3]Thirdparties,suchasaclient'screditors,mayhavejustclaimsagainstfundsorother  propertyinalawyer'scustody.Alawyermayhaveadutyunderapplicablelawtoprotectsuch  third-partyclaimsagainstwrongfulinterferencebytheclient,andaccordinglymayrefuseto  surrenderthepropertytotheclient.However,alawyershouldnotunilaterallyassumeto  arbitrateadisputebetweentheclientandthethirdparty.Ifnotinconsistentwiththeinterestsof r theclient,thelawyermayfileaninterpleaderactionconcerningfundsindisputebetweenthe [ clientandathirdparty. D   [4]TheobligationsofalawyerunderthisRuleareindependentofthosearisingfrom f activityotherthanrenderinglegalservices.Forexample,alawyerwhoservesasanescrow O agentisgovernedbytheapplicablelawrelatingtofiduciarieseventhoughthelawyerdoesnot  8 renderlegalservicesinthetransaction. !!  B.` hp x (#XB  [5]Incertaincircumstances,Tennesseelawgoverningabandonedpropertymayapplyto #" moniesinlawyertrustaccountsorotherpropertyleftinthehandsoflawyersandmaygovernits $# disposition.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.66-29-101through204(1993andSupp.1999)(Uniform u% $ DispositionofUnclaimedPropertyAct). ^&!%    _DEFINITIONAL_ԀCROSSREFERENCES 0(#'  CӀ )j$(   None. *S%)    COMMITTEENOTES  *<&* D   +&'+  ComparisonToCurrentTennesseeEthicsRules     Paragraph(a): DR9-102(A)providesthat"fundsofclients"aretobekeptinan  identifiablebankaccountinthestateinwhichthelawyer'sofficeissituated.DR9-102(B)(2) o providesthatalawyershall"f  [_i]dentify_f  g Ԁandlabelsecuritiesandpropertiesofaclient...andplace X themin...safekeeping...."DR9-102(B)(3)requiresthatalawyer"f  g [_m]aintain_f  g Ԁcomplete A  recordsofallfunds,securities,andotherpropertiesofaclient."ProposedRule1.15(a)extends * z theserequirementstopropertyofathirdpersonthatisinthelawyer'spossessioninconnection  c withtherepresentation.ThesecondsentenceinParagraph(a)(1)(2)tracksDR9102(C)(2)(d).  L   Paragraph(a)(1)(ii)doesnotcontainthedetailedadministrativeprovisionscontainedin    DR9-102(C)(2)governingthe_IOLTA_.TheCommitteedeterminedthatthesedetailsweremore   properlyincludedinaseparateSupremeCourtRuledevotedtothispurpose.TheCommittee   submitsthataSupremeCourtRulethatwouldbesubstantivelyidenticaltotheadministrative   requirementsofDR9-102wouldprovideasfollows: r    @@ d PROPOSEDSUPREMECOURTRULE___ D @@. . dINTERESTONLAWYERTRUSTACCOUNTS  .~ _K  TennesseeSupremeCourtRule8#X XX2X Ѧ&#(TennesseeRulesofProfessionalConduct)2X XXX Ԁrequires Q   TennesseelawyerstoparticipateintheInterestonLawyersTrustAccount(_IOLTA_) :   program,absentnoticetotheChiefJusticeoftheSupremeCourtofTennesseeandthe #   BoardofProfessionalResponsibilityoftheSupremeCourtofTennessee.     Thefollowingruleshallgovernthemaintenanceandoperationofaccounts     (hereinafter _IOLTA_Ԁaccounts)underthisprogram: w 0  0` (#(#(1)Lawyersorlawfirmsdepositingclientfundsinan_IOLTA_Ԁaccountshall I directthedepositoryinstitution:2` (#` (#    `  (_i_)Toremitinterest,netanyservicechargesorfees,ascomputedin  T    `  accordancewiththeinstitutionsstandardaccountingpractice,atleast  =    `  quarterly,totheTennesseeBarFoundationfordepositinitsInterest !&     `  onLawyersTrustAccountsprogram(_IOLTA_);and "! 0   ` 0 (#(#(ii)TotransmitwitheachremittancetotheTennesseeBarFoundationa $# statementshowingthenameofthelawyerorlawfirmonwhoseaccount z% $ theremittanceissent,theaccountnumberandtherateofinterestapplied, c&!% withacopyofsuchstatementtobetransmittedtothelawyerorthelaw L'"& firm.5(#' (# (# 0  0` (#(#(2)AllinteresttransmittedtotheTennesseeBarFoundationshallbedistributed *W%) bythatentityforthefollowingpurposes:*@&*` (#` (#  +)'+    `  (_i_)Toprovidelegalassistancetothepoor;  0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#(ii)Toprovidestudentloans,grants,andscholarshipstodeservinglaw  students;k (# (# 0   `  (iii)Toimprovetheadministrationofjustice;and= (#(# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#(iv)Forsuchotherprogramsforthebenefitofthepublicasare  _ specificallyapprovedbytheSupremeCourtoftheStateofTennessee  H fromtimetotime. 1  (# (# 0  0` (#(#(3)TheregistrationrequiredbyRule9,Section20.5,oftheRulesoftheSupreme   Courtshallalsoincludean_IOLTA_Ԁcompliancestatement,whichshallsetforththe   bankorbankswherethelawyerorthelawfirmmaintainssuchdepository   account.Suchcompliancestatementshallfurtherdesignatetheaccountnumber n  assignedbyanysuchbanktosuchaccount.The_IOLTA_Ԁcompliancestatement W  shalldirectsuchbankorbankstoremitinterestthereonasrequiredinRule1.15 @ oftheRulesofProfessionalConduct,TennesseeSupremeCourtRule8.)y` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#(4)Alawyerwhodoesnotmaintainsuchdepositoryaccountfordepositof K clientsfundsasreferencedaboveshalladvisetheBoardofProfessional 4 ResponsibilityoftheStateofTennesseewhenfilingtheregistrationstatement  and_IOLTA_Ԁcompliancestatementasreferencedaboveherein,thatsuchlawyer  doesnotmaintain,andthereasonswhysuchlawyerdoesnotmaintainsucha  pooleddepositoryaccount.Acopyofsuchdeclinationtoparticipateinthe  _IOLTA_Ԁprogram,orstatementthatnosuchpooleddepositoryaccountis q maintainedshallbetransmittedtotheTennesseeBarFoundationbytheBoardof Z ProfessionalResponsibility.C` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#(5)TheBoardofProfessionalResponsibility,actinginconcertwiththe e TennesseeBarFoundation,maypromulgatesuchformsandproceduresaswill N implementparagraphsthisRuleandRule1.15oftheRulesofProfessional  7 Conduct,TennesseeSupremeCourtRule8.!  ` (#` (# 6_  Paragraph(b):Paragraph(b)issubstantiallysimilartoDR9-102(B)(1),(3)and(4),but #" theCommitteehasaddedaclausemakingitclearthatifthereisadisputebetweentheclientand $# thirdperson,thelawyermustkeepthedisputedfundsf  Ԁg separatef  g Ԁpendingresolutionofthedispute.f  Ԁg  t% $   Paragraph(c):Paragraph(c)issimilartoDR9-102(A)(2). F'"&    ` ComparisonToABAModelRules  )h$(   Paragraph(a)containsallthesubstanceofABAModelRule1.15(a)f  ,buthasbeen *;&* reorganizedandsupplementedtoaccountforcurrentTennesseelawwithrespecttooverdraft +$'+ notificationandtheInterestOnLawyerf  g sTrustAccountsf  (_IOLTA_)f  g program.g Ԁf  g ԀParagraphs(b)and  (c)trackABAModelRulel.15(b)and(c).   ChangesMadeto1997CommitteePreliminaryDraftInResponsetoComments  l     LanguagefromcurrentDR9102(f  g C)(2)(f  g d)hasbeenaddedtoParagraph(a)(1)(ii). ?    TheCommitteehasdeletedComment[5]thatread:A"client'ssecurityfund"providesa  a meansthroughthecollectiveeffortsofthebartoreimbursepersonswhohavelostmoneyor  J propertyasaresultofdishonestconductofalawyer.Wheresuchafundhasbeenestablished,a  3  lawyershouldparticipate.ThisCommentisnotneededbecauseTennesseesClientSecurity    Fundisfinancedbyamandatoryassessmentimposedonalllawyers.     AsentencehasbeenaddedtoComment[3]alertinglawyerstothepossibilityoffilingan   interpleaderactiontoresolveadisputebetweenthelawyersclientandathirdpartyabouttheir p  respectiveentitlementtofundsheldbythelawyer. Y    TheCommitteehasaddedComment[5]asahelpfulreferenceforlawyers. +{ #X XX2X чL# CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges M Made 2X XXX  7   #X XX2X i#  TheCommitteehasdeletedthesecondsentenceinParagraph(c)assurplusageandhas   mademinoreditorialchangestoComments[1]and[2].HelpfullanguageparallelingDR9  102(A)(1)hasbeenaddedtoParagraph(a)(1).   2X XXX     PROPOSEDRULE1.16  DECLININGANDTERMINATINGREPRESENTATION   k tyk(a)Exceptasstatedinparagraph(c),alawyershallnotrepresentaclientor,where o representationhascommenced,shallwithdrawfromtherepresentationoftheclientif: X   (1)therepresentationwillresultinaviolationoftheRulesofProfessionalConductor * z   otherlaw;or  c 50 `  ` (#` (# (2)thelawyersphysicalormentalconditionmateriallyimpairsthelawyersabilityto  5  representtheclient;or    (3)thelawyerisdischarged.   m҂  (b)Exceptasstatedinparagraph(c),alawyermaywithdrawfromtherepresentationofaclient r  ifthewithdrawalcanbeaccomplishedwithoutmaterialadverseeffectontheinterestsofthe [  clientorif: D (1)theclientpersistsinacourseofactioninvolvingthelawyer'sservicesthatthelawyer f reasonablybelievesiscriminalorfraudulent; O 0 `  ` (#` (# (2)theclienthasusedthelawyer'sservicestoperpetrateacrimeorfraud;#X XX2X yk#2X XXX  ! (3)aclientinsistsuponpursuinganobjectiveortakingactionthatthelawyerconsiders  repugnantorimprudent;#X XX2X Nq#2X XXX   0 `  ` (#` (# (4)theclientfailssubstantiallytofulfillanobligationtothelawyerregardingthe ^ lawyer'sservicesandhasbeengivenreasonablewarningthatthelawyerwillwithdraw G unlesstheobligationisfulfilled;#X XX2X -r#2X XXX  0 0 `  ` (#` (# (5)therepresentationwillresultinanunanticipatedandsubstantialfinancialburdenon  R thelawyerorhasbeenrenderedunreasonablydifficultbytheclient;#X XX2X ѡs#2X XXX   ; 0 `   ` (#` (# (6)othergoodcauseforwithdrawalexists;or " ! (7)afterconsultationwiththelawyer,theclientconsentsinwritingtothewithdrawalof $# thelawyer. x% $ o(c)Whenorderedtodosobyatribunal,alawyershallcontinuerepresentationnotwithstanding J'"& goodcauseforterminatingtherepresentation. 3(#' (d)Uponterminationoftherepresentationofaclient,alawyershalltakestepstotheextent *U%) reasonablypracticabletoprotectaclient'sinterests,including: *>&*  +''+   (1)givingreasonablenoticetotheclientaswillallowtimefortheemploymentofother    counsel;#X XX2X t#2X XXX   M ` (2)promptlysurrenderingpapersandpropertyoftheclientandanyworkproduct k preparedbythelawyerfortheclientandforwhichthelawyerhasbeencompensated; T  ` (3)promptlysurrenderinganyotherworkproductpreparedbythelawyerfortheclient, & v provided,however,thatthelawyermayretainsuchworkproducttotheextentpermitted  _ byotherlawbutonlyiftheretentionoftheworkproductwillnothaveamaterially  H adverseaffectontheclientwithrespecttothesubjectmatteroftherepresentation;#X XX2X ex#2X XXX   1  (4)promptlyrefundingtotheclientanyadvancepaymentforexpenseswhichhavenot   beenincurredbythelawyer;and   x  (5)promptlyrefundinganyadvancepaymentforfeesthathavenotbeenearned. n       COMMENT A  |  [1]Alawyershouldnotacceptrepresentationinamatterunlessitcanbeperformed d competently,promptly,withoutimproperconflictofinterestandtocompletion. M    MandatoryWithdrawal    }  [2]Alawyerordinarilymustdeclineorwithdrawfromrepresentationiftheclient  demandsthatthelawyerengageinconductthatisillegalorviolatestheRulesofProfessional  Conductorotherlaw.Thelawyerisnotobligedtodeclineorwithdrawsimplybecausetheclient u suggestssuchacourseofconduct;aclientmaymakesuchasuggestioninthehopethatalawyer ^ willnotbeconstrainedbyaprofessionalobligation. G   [3]Whenalawyerhasbeenappointedtorepresentaclient,withdrawalordinarily i requiresapprovaloftheappointingauthority.SeealsoRule6.2.Difficultymaybeencountered  R ifwithdrawalisbasedontheclient'sdemandthatthelawyerengageinunprofessionalconduct.  ; Thecourtmaywishanexplanationforthewithdrawal,whilethelawyermaybeboundtokeep !$  confidentialthefactsthatwouldconstitutesuchanexplanation.Thelawyer'sstatementthat " ! professionalconsiderationsrequireterminationoftherepresentationordinarilyshouldbe #" acceptedassufficient. $#    Discharge  b&!%   [4]Aclienthasarighttodischargealawyeratanytime,withorwithoutcause,subject 5(#' toliabilityforpaymentforthelawyer'sservices.Wherefuturedisputeaboutthewithdrawalmay )n$( beanticipated,itmaybeadvisabletoprepareawrittenstatementrecitingthecircumstances. *W%)   [5]Whetheraclientcandischargeappointedcounselmaydependonapplicablelaw.A#X XX2X P{#2X XXX  +)'+ #X XX2X 8#2X XXX clientseekingtodososhouldbegivenafullexplanationoftheconsequences.These  consequencesmayincludeadecisionbytheappointingauthoritythatappointmentofsuccessor  counselisunjustified,thusrequiringtheclienttoproceedwithoutassistanceofcounsel.    [6]Iftheclientismentallyincompetent,theclientmaylackthelegalcapacityto T dischargethelawyer,andinanyeventthedischargemaybeseriouslyadversetotheclient's =  interests.Thelawyershouldmakespecialefforttohelptheclientconsidertheconsequencesand, & v inanextremecase,mayinitiateproceedingsforaconservatorshiporsimilarprotectionofthe  _ client.SeeRule1.14.  H    OptionalWithdrawal       [7]Alawyermaywithdrawfromrepresentationinsomecircumstances.Thelawyerhas   theoptiontowithdrawifitcanbeaccomplishedwithoutmaterialadverseeffectontheclient's   interests.Withdrawalisalsojustifiediftheclientpersistsinacourseofactionthatthelawyer p  reasonablybelievesiscriminalorfraudulent,foralawyerisnotrequiredtobeassociatedwith Y  suchconductevenifthelawyerdoesnotfurtherit.Withdrawalisalsopermittedifthelawyer's B servicesweremisusedinthepastevenifthatwouldmateriallyprejudicetheclient.Thelawyer +{ alsomaywithdrawwheretheclientinsistsonarepugnantorimprudentobjectiveoraction. d   [8]Alawyermaywithdrawiftheclientrefusestoabidebythetermsofanagreement 6 relatingtotherepresentation,suchasanagreementconcerningfeesorcourtcostsoran  agreementlimitingtheobjectivesoftherepresentation.Thelawyermust,however,givethe  clientreasonablenoticeofthelawyersintentiontowithdraw.     AssistingtheClientUponWithdrawal  s -  [9]Evenifthelawyerhasbeenunfairlydischargedbytheclient,alawyermusttakeall F reasonablestepstomitigatetheconsequencestotheclient.Thelawyermayretainpapersas / securityforafeeonlytotheextentpermittedbylaw. h   [10]Whetherornotalawyerforanorganizationmayundercertainunusual  : circumstanceshavealegalobligationtotheorganizationafterwithdrawingorbeingdischarged !#  bytheorganization'shighestauthorityisbeyondthescopeoftheseRules. " !    _DEFINITIONAL_ԀCROSSREFERENCES $#   ConsentsinWritingSeeRule1.0(b) a&!%  ConsultationSeeRule1.0(c) J'"&  Fraudand FraudulentSeeRule1.0(e) 3(#'  MaterialandMateriallySeeRule1.0(g) )l$(  ReasonableSeeRule1.0(_i_) *U%)  ReasonablyBelievesSeeRule1.0(j) *>&*  SubstantialSeeRule1.0(l) +''+  SubstantiallySeeRule1.0(l)   TribunalSeeRule1.0(m)  Ѐ     COMMITTEENOTES k ComparisonToCurrentTennesseeEthicsRules ?     Paragraph(a):Withrespecttothemandatoryobligationtodeclinearepresentation,DR  b 2-109(A)providesthatalawyer"shallnotacceptemployment...iff  g thelawyerf  g f  g f  g Ԁknowsoritis  K obviousthat[theprospectiveclient]wishesto...[_b]ring_Ԁalegalaction...orotherwisehave  4  stepstaken,merelyforthepurposeofharassingormaliciouslyinjuringanyperson....or    [_p]resent_Ԁaclaimordefense...thatisnotwarrantedunderexistinglaw,unlessitcanbe   supportedbygoodfaithargumentforanextension,modification,orreversalofexistinglaw."   Withrespecttomandatorywithdrawalfromarepresentation,DR2-110(B)providesthatf  [ag ]f  g    lawyerrepresentingaclientbeforeatribunal,withitspermissionifrequiredbyitsrules,shall q  withdrawfromemploymentif:(1)thelawyerknowsoritisobviousthattheclientisbringing Z  thelegalaction,conductingthedefense,orisassertingapositioninthelitigationorisotherwise C havingstepstaken,merelyforthepurposeofharassingormaliciouslyinjuringanyperson;(2) ,| thelawyerknowsoritisobviousthatcontinuedemploymentwillresultinviolationofa e DisciplinaryRule;(3)thelawyersmentalorphysicalconditionrendersitunreasonablydifficult N forhimtocarryouttheemploymenteffectively;or(4)thelawyerisdischargedbyhisclient."  7    Paragraph(b):Thereisnocomparablerighttowithdraworseekpermissionofatribunal   towithdraw withoutcauseintheDisciplinaryRules.    TheenumeratedcausesforpermissivewithdrawalcomparetotheDisciplinaryRulesas u follows: ^   Paragraph(b)(1):Subparagraph(b)(1)permitswithdrawalif theclientpersistsina 0 courseofactioninvolvingthelawyer'sservicesthatthelawyerreasonablybelievesiscriminalor i fraudulent.DR2110(g C)(f  g 1),ontheotherhand,permitswithdrawaliftheclientinsistson  R presentingaclaimoradefensethatisnotwarrantedunderexistinglawandcannotbesupported  ; bygoodfaithargumentforanextension,modification,orreversalofexistinglaw.DR2 !$  110(g c)(f  g 1)(b)permitswithdrawal iftheclientpersonallyseekstopursueanillegalcourseof " ! conduct.DR2110(Cg )(f  g 1g )f  g (c)permitswithdrawaliftheclientinsiststhatthelawyerpursuea #" courseofconductthatisillegalorthatisprohibitedundertheDisciplinaryRules. $# 0   (#(#   Paragraph(b)(2):Thereisnocounterparttosubparagraph(b)(2)intheDisciplinary a&!% Rules. J'"&   Paragraph(b)(3):DR2110(C)(1)(e)permitswithdrawalthef  g Ԁclient g f  g [_i]nsists_f  g ,inamatter )l$( notpendingbeforeatribunal,thatthelawyerengageinconductthatiscontrarytothejudgment *U%)  andadviceofthelawyerbutnotprohibitedundertheDisciplinaryRules.Thisisconsistentwith *>&* thereferenceinSubparagraph(b)(3)toimprudentconduct,towhichhasbeenaddedthe  referencetorepugnantconduct.   0   (#(#   Paragraph(b)(4):DR2110(C)(1)f  (f)f  Ԁpermitswithdrawaliftheclient deliberately k disregardsanagreementorobligationtothelawyerastoexpensesandfees. T   Paragraph(b)(5):DR2110(C)(1)(d)permitswithdrawaliftheclientengagesin & v  conductthatrendersitunreasonablydifficultforthelawyertocarryouttheemployment  _ effectively.ThereisnocounterpartintheDisciplinaryRulestotheSubparagraph(b)(5)sgrant  H ofpermissiontowithdrawiftherepresentationwithresultinanunanticipatedandsubstantial  1  financialburden.      Paragraph(b)(6):DR2110(C)(6)permitswithdrawalexistsiff  g [_t]he_f  g Ԁlawyerbelievesin   goodfaith,inaproceedingpendingbeforeatribunal,thatthetribunalwillfindtheexistenceof   othergoodcauseforwithdrawal. n    Paragraph(b)(7):DR2110(C)(5)permitswithdrawaliff  thelawyers f  clientf  g Ԁknowingly @ andfreelyassentstoterminationoftheemployment. )y   Paragraph(c):DR2110(A)(1)provides:"Ifpermissionforwithdrawalfrom K employmentisrequiredbytherulesofatribunal,thelawyershallnotwithdrawwithoutits 4 permission."    Paragraph(d): Paragraph(d)differsfromDR2110(A)(2)and(3)asfollows:   ` 1.TheProposedRuledealsmorespecificallywiththelawyersresponsibilities t andrightswithrespecttoclientpapers,property,andworkproductthelawyerhas ] preparedinthecourseoftherepresentation. F  ` 2.TheProposedRulealsoprovidesthatthelawyermaynotexercisehisorher h righttoretainpapersifsodoingwouldhaveamateriallyadverseeffectontheclientwith  Q respecttothesubjectmatterinwhichthelawyerwasrepresentingtheclient.  :  ` 3.Paragraph(d)(4)explicitlyrequiresthereturnofunspentadvancepaymentsfor " ! costs. #" R ComparisonToABAModelRules  x% $   ProposedRule1.16isidenticaltoModelRule1.16exceptasfollows: K'"&   Paragraph(b)(3)broadenstheModelRulebypermittingwithdrawalifaclientinsists )m$( uponpursuinganobjectiveortakingactionthatthelawyerconsidersrepugnantorimprudent. *V%)   *?&*   Paragraph(b)(5)ismorerestrictivethanModelRule1.16(b)(5)inthatitonlypermits   withdrawaliftherepresentationwillresultinan unanticipatedandsubstantialfinancial  burden..    ThereisnocounterpartintheModelRuletoparagraph(b)(7). T  ChangesMadeto1997CommitteePreliminaryDraftInResponsetoComments & v      `   Paragraph(a):ReferencestoProposedRule6.2andseekingthepermissionofatribunal  I weredeletedasanunnecessarydeparturefromABAModelRule1.16(a).  2    Paragraph(b):ToeliminateanotherunnecessarydeparturefromABAModelRule1.16,   Paragraphs(B)and(C)inthepreliminarydrafthavebeencombinedintoParagraph(b)from   whichthereferencestoProposedRule6.2andseekingpermissionofatribunalhavebeen   deleted.Subparagraphs(b)(1)and(b)havealsobeenmodifiedtoconformtotheModelRule. o    Deletions:Thefollowingparagraphsweredeleted: A  ` Paragraph(D):Thisparagraph,whichaddressedconfidentialityissuesasmight c arisewhenalawyerseeksatribunalspermission,hasbeendeletedasredundant.These L issuesareadequatelyaddressedbyProposedRules1.6and3.3. 5  `  ` Paragraph(F):Paragraph(F),whichrequiredlawyersassociatedinaformtotake  actiontoprotectfirmclientswhenalawyerwhoishandlingthematterforthefirmleaves  thefirm,hasbeendeleted.TheCommitteehasconcludedthatthisissuecanbe  adequatelyhandledintermsofthelawyersdutyunderProposedRule1.4tokeepthe r clientreasonablyadvisedaboutthestatusoftherepresentation. [ f   ` Also,Comment[11]wasdeleted. -}  #X XX2X я#CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges O Made2X XXX   9  #X XX2X 8#  TheAttorneyGeneralhasvoicedconcernthatRule1.16mayimposerestrictionsonthe " ! freedomoftheAttorneyGeneraltoterminatetherepresentationbyhisofficeofastateagencyor #" officialincircumstancesinwhichapotentialconflictofinterestexistsoranemployeeisdeemed $# tohaveactedoutsidethescopeofhisorheremployment.TheCommitteeseesnoneedto x% $ changethisRuleinresponsetotheAttorneyGeneralsconcernbecauseParagraph(b)(6)permits a&!% withdrawalfor othergoodcause.CompliancebytheAttorneyGeneralwiththe J'"& responsibilitiesofhisofficeshouldbedeemedgoodcauseforwithdrawalinthosesituationsin 3(#' whichwithdrawalwouldhaveanadverseeffectontheclient.Moregenerally,however,the )l$( CommitteebelievesthattheextenttowhichtheAttorneyGeneralisobligatedtocomplywith *U%) theRulesofProfessionalConductisaquestionoflawthatisbeyondthescopeoftheseRules.2X XXX   *>&* f  g #X XX2X #2X XXX    +''+     PROPOSEDRULE1.17  SALEOFALAWPRACTICE    ˾ Alawyeroralawfirmmaysellorpurchasealawpractice,includinggoodwill,ifthefollowing n conditionsaresatisfied: W 0  (a)Thesellerceasestoengageintheprivatepracticeoflawinthegeographicareain ) y whichthepracticehasbeenconducted;and b(#(# 0  (b)Thepracticeissoldasanentiretytoanotherlawyerorlawfirmandtheseller  4  providesthebuyerwithwrittennoticeofthefeeagreementwitheachofthesellers    clientsandanyotheragreementsrelatingtoeachclientsrepresentation;and (#(# Ѐ0  (c)Writtennoticeisgiventoeachoftheseller'sclientsregardingtheproposedsale,the   client'srighttoretainothercounselortotakepossessionofthefile,andthefactthatthe q  clientsconsenttorepresentationbythepurchaserwillbepresumediftheclientdoesnot Z  takeanyactionordoesnototherwiseobjectwithinthirty(30)daysofreceiptofthe C notice.,|(#(# 0  (d)Ifaclientcannotbegivennotice,therepresentationofthatclientmaybetransferred N tothepurchaseronlyuponentryofanordersoauthorizingbyacourthavingjurisdiction 7 orbythepresidingjudgeinthejudicialdistrictinwhichthesellerresides.Theseller   maydisclosetothecourtincamerainformationrelatingtotherepresentationonlytothe   extentnecessarytoobtainanorderauthorizingthetransferofafile.(#(# 0  (e)Unlesstheclientconsentsinwritingafterconsultation,thefeesandexpensescharged t aclientshallnotbeincreasedbyreasonofthesale,andthepurchasinglawyershallabide ] byanyagreementsbetweenthesellinglawyerandtheclientwithrespecttothe F representationasarepermittedbytheserulesandofwhichthepurchasinglawyerwas / givennoticepriortothetransferoftherepresentation.h(#(#     `     h COMMENT   ;   [1]Thepracticeoflawisaprofession,notmerelyabusiness.Clientsarenot "! commoditiesthatcanbepurchasedandsoldatwill.PursuanttothisRule,whenalawyeroran #" entirefirmceasestopracticeandanotherlawyerorfirmtakesovertherepresentation,theselling $# lawyerorfirmmayobtaincompensationforthereasonablevalueofthepracticeasmay y% $ withdrawingpartnersoflawfirms.SeeRules5.4and5.6. b&!%    TerminationofPracticebytheSeller  4(#'   [2]Therequirementthatalloftheprivatepracticebesoldissatisfiediftheselleringood *W%) faithmakestheentirepracticeavailableforsaletothepurchaser.Thefactthatanumberofthe *@&* seller'sclientsdecidenottoberepresentedbythepurchaserbuttaketheirmatterselsewhere, +)'+ _therefore,doesnotresultinaviolation.Neitherdoesareturntoprivatepracticeasaresultofan  unanticipatedchangeincircumstancesresultinaviolation.Forexample,alawyerwhohassold  thepracticetoacceptanappointmenttojudicialofficedoesnotviolatetherequirementthatthe  salebeattendanttocessationofpracticeifthelawyerlaterresumesprivatepracticeuponbeing k defeatedinacontestedoraretentionelectionfortheoffice. T   [3]Therequirementthatthesellerceasetoengageintheprivatepracticeoflawdoesnot & v prohibitemploymentasalawyeronthestaffofapublicagencyoralegalservicesentitywhich  _ provideslegalservicestothepoor,orasin-housecounseltoabusiness.  H   [4]TheRulepermitsasaleattendantuponretirementfromtheprivatepracticeoflaw    withinthejurisdiction.Itsprovisions,therefore,accommodatethelawyerwhosellsthepractice   upontheoccasionofmovingtoanotherstate.Tennesseeissufficientlylargethatamovefrom   onelocalethereintoanotheristantamounttoleavingthejurisdictioninwhichthelawyerhas   engagedinthepracticeoflaw.Toalsoaccommodatelawyerssosituated,theRulepermitsthe n  saleofthepracticewhenthelawyerleavesthegeographicareainwhichheorsheispracticing W  aswellaswhenthelawyerleavesthestate. @    SinglePurchaser  b ,  [5]TheRulerequiresasinglepurchaser.Theprohibitionagainstpiecemealsaleofa 5 practiceprotectsthoseclientswhosemattersarelesslucrativeandwhomightfinditdifficultto  secureothercounselifasalecouldbelimitedtosubstantialfee-generatingmatters.The  purchaserisrequiredtoundertakeallclientmattersinthepractice,subjecttoclientconsent.If,  however,thepurchaserisunabletoundertakeallclientmattersbecauseofaconflictofinterest  inaspecificmatterrespectingwhichthepurchaserisnotpermittedbyRule1.7oranotherruleto r representtheclient,therequirementthattherebeasinglepurchaserisneverthelesssatisfied. [    ClientConfidences,ConsentandNotice  -}   [6]Negotiationsbetweensellerandprospectivepurchaserpriortodisclosureof  P informationrelatingtoaspecificrepresentationofanidentifiableclientnomoreviolatethe  9 confidentialityprovisionsofModelRule1.6thandopreliminarydiscussionsconcerningthe !"  possibleassociationofanotherlawyerormergersbetweenfirms,withrespecttowhichclient " ! consentisnotrequired.Providingthepurchaseraccesstoclient-specificinformationrelatingto #" therepresentationandtothefile,however,requiresclientconsent.TheRuleprovidesthatbefore $# suchinformationcanbedisclosedbythesellertothepurchasertheclientmustbegivenactual v% $ writtennoticeofthecontemplatedsale,includingtheidentityofthepurchaserandanyproposed _&!% changeinthetermsoffuturerepresentation,andmustbetoldthatthedecisiontoconsentor H'"& makeotherarrangementsmustbemadewithin30days.Ifnothingisheardfromtheclientwithin 1(#' thattime,consenttothesaleispresumed. )j$(   [7]Alawyerorlawfirmceasingtopracticecannotberequiredtoremaininpractice *<&* becausesomeclientscannotbegivenactualnoticeoftheproposedpurchase.Sincethese_clients +%'+ cannotthemselvesconsenttothepurchaseordirectanyotherdispositionoftheirfiles,theRule  requiresanorderfromacourthavingjurisdictionauthorizingtheirtransferorotherdisposition.  TheCourtcanbeexpectedtodeterminewhetherreasonableeffortstolocatetheclienthavebeen  exhausted,andwhethertheabsentclient'slegitimateinterestswillbeservedbyauthorizingthe k transferofthefilesothatthepurchasermaycontinuetherepresentation.Preservationofclient T confidencesrequiresthatthepetitionforacourtorderbeconsideredincamera. =    [8]Alltheelementsofclientautonomy,includingtheclient'sabsoluterighttodischarge  _ alawyerandtransfertherepresentationtoanother,survivethesaleofthepractice.  H    FeeArrangementsBetweenClientandPurchaser     |  [9]Thesalemaynotbefinancedbyincreasesinfeeschargedtheclientsofthepractice.   Existingagreementsbetweenthesellerandtheclientastofeesandthescopeoftheworkmust   behonoredbythepurchaser,unlesstheclientconsentsafterconsultation. o     OtherApplicableEthicalStandards  B 0  [10]Lawyersparticipatinginthesaleofalawpracticearesubjecttotheethicalstandards e applicabletoinvolvinganotherlawyerintherepresentationofaclient.Theseinclude,for N example,theseller'sobligationtoexercisecompetenceinidentifyingapurchaserqualifiedto 7 assumethepracticeandthepurchaser'sobligationtoundertaketherepresentationcompetently   (seeRule1.1);theobligationtoavoiddisqualifyingconflicts,andtosecureclientconsentafter   consultationforthoseconflictswhichcanbeagreedto(seeRule1.7);andtheobligationto  protectinformationrelatingtotherepresentation(seeRules1.6and1.9).    [11]Ifapprovalofthesubstitutionofthepurchasingattorneyforthesellingattorneyis ] requiredbytherulesofanytribunalinwhichamatterispending,suchapprovalmustbe F obtainedbeforethemattercanbeincludedinthesale(seeRule1.16). /    ApplicabilityoftheRule   Q   [12]ThisRuleappliestothesaleofalawpracticebyrepresentativesofadeceased, !$  disabledordisappearedlawyer.Thus,thesellermayberepresentedbyanon-lawyer " ! representativenotsubjecttotheseRules.Since,however,nolawyermayparticipateinasaleof #" alawpracticewhichdoesnotconformtotherequirementsofthisRule,therepresentativesofthe $# selleraswellasthepurchasinglawyercanbeexpectedtoseetoitthattherequirementsaremet. x% $   [13]Admissiontoorretirementfromalawpartnershiporprofessionalassociation, J'"& retirementplansandsimilararrangements,andasaleoftangibleassetsofalawpractice,donot 3(#' constituteasaleorpurchasegovernedbythisRule. )l$(   [14]ThisRuledoesnotapplytothetransfersoflegalrepresentationbetweenlawyers *>&* whensuchtransfersareunrelatedtothesaleofapractice. +''+ Ї   _DEFINITIONAL_ԀCROSSREFERENCES    ConsentsinWritingSeeRule1.0(b)   ConsultationSeeRule1.0(c) l  LawFirmSeeRule1.0(d) U     @ COMMITTEENOTES  ( x  ComparisonToCurrentTennesseeEthicsRules   K   ThereisnocounterparttotheProposedRuleintheDisciplinaryRules.     ComparisonToABAModelRules        ProposedRule1.17isidenticaltoABAModelRule1.17exceptforthefollowing s  modifications: \    Paragraph(b):Paragraph(b)includesanadditionalrequirementthatthesellerprovide .~ thebuyerwithwrittennoticeofthesellersfeeagreementsandanyotheragreementswith g respecttotherepresentationofeachofthesellersclients.TheCommitteebelievesthatthe P purchasinglawyermusthavethisinformationinordertocomplywithparagraph(e). 9 Ѐ  Paragraph(c):TheModelRulepresumesconsentoftheclienttothesaleofthepractice   iftheclientdoesnottakeactionorotherwiseobjectwithin90daysafternoticeoftheproposed  sale.  Ѐ v   Paragraph(d):UnlikeParagraph(d)oftheModelRule,theProposedRuledoesnot _ permitthepurchasinglawyertoconditionhisorherrepresentationofthesellinglawyersclients H uponachangeinthefeeorexpensearrangementsaswereagreedtobytheclientandtheselling 1 lawyer.TheProposedRule,however,doespermitthepurchasinglawyertorequestsucha j changeandtoimplementthechangeiftheclientconsentsafterconsultation.Wehavealso  S requiredthepurchasinglawyertohonoranyotheragreementswithrespecttotherepresentation  < ifthelawyerhadnoticeofthempriortothetransferoftherepresentation. !%   ChangesMadeto1997CommitteePreliminaryDraftInResponsetoComments #"    Nochanges. {% $  #X XX2X l#CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges M'"& Made2X XXX  7(#'    Nocommentsorchanges.   *[%) f  g #X XX2X ѩ#2X XXX   *D&*     CHAPTER2  THELAWYERASCOUNSELOR,INTERMEDIARY,  ANDDISPUTERESOLUTIONNEUTRAL      PROPOSEDRULE2.1 X ADVISOR c B  W  Inrepresentingaclient,alawyershallexerciseindependentprofessionaljudgmentandrender  f candidadvice.Inrenderingadvice,alawyermayrefernotonlytolawbuttoother  O considerationssuchasmoral,economic,socialandpoliticalfactors,thatmayberelevanttothe  8  client'ssituation.  !     COMMENT     ScopeofAdvice  w  d  [1]Aclientisentitledtostraightforwardadviceexpressingthelawyer'shonest J assessment.Legaladviceofteninvolvesunpleasantfactsandalternativesthataclientmaybe 3 disinclinedtoconfront.Inpresentingadvice,alawyerendeavorstosustaintheclient'smorale l andmayputadviceinasacceptableaformashonestypermits.However,alawyershouldnotbe U deterredfromgivingcandidadvicebytheprospectthattheadvicewillbeunpalatabletothe > client. '   [2]Advicecouchedinnarrowlylegaltermsmaybeoflittlevaluetoaclient,especially  wherepracticalconsiderations,suchascostoreffectsonotherpeople,arepredominant.Purely  technicallegaladvice,therefore,cansometimesbeinadequate.Itisproperforalawyertorefer { torelevantmoralandethicalconsiderationsingivingadvice.Althoughalawyerisnotamoral d advisorassuch,moralandethicalconsiderationsimpingeuponmostlegalquestionsandmay M decisivelyinfluencehowthelawwillbeapplied. 6   [3]Aclientmayexpresslyorimpliedlyaskthelawyerforpurelytechnicaladvice.When  X sucharequestismadebyaclientexperiencedinlegalmatters,thelawyermayacceptitatface  A value.Whensucharequestismadebyaclientinexperiencedinlegalmatters,however,the !*  lawyer'sresponsibilityasadvisormayincludeindicatingthatmoremaybeinvolvedthanstrictly "! legalconsiderations. #"   [4]Mattersthatgobeyondstrictlylegalquestionsmayalsobeinthedomainofanother ~% $ profession.Familymatterscaninvolveproblemswithintheprofessionalcompetenceof g&!% psychiatry,clinicalpsychologyorsocialwork;businessmatterscaninvolveproblemswithinthe P'"& competenceoftheaccountingprofessionoroffinancialspecialists.Whereconsultationwitha 9(#' professionalinanotherfieldisitselfsomethingacompetentlawyerwouldrecommend,the ")r$( lawyershouldmakesucharecommendation.Atthesametime,alawyer'sadviceatitsbestoften  *[%) consistsofrecommendingacourseofactioninthefaceofconflictingrecommendationsof *D&* experts. +-'+ Ї   OfferingAdvice     [5]Ingeneral,alawyerisnotexpectedtogiveadviceuntilaskedbytheclient.However,  whenalawyerknowsthataclientproposesacourseofactionthatislikelytoresultin l substantialadverselegalconsequencestotheclient,dutytotheclientunderRule1.4may U requirethatthelawyeractiftheclient'scourseofactionisrelatedtotherepresentation.A >  lawyerordinarilyhasnodutytoinitiateinvestigationofaclient'saffairsortogiveadvicethat ' w theclienthasindicatedisunwanted,butalawyermayinitiateadvicetoaclientwhendoingso  ` appearstobeintheclient'sinterest.  I    _DEFINITIONAL_ԀCROSSREFERENCES     9  None.      COMMITTEENOTES  q   ComparisonToCurrentTennesseeEthicsRules  D   ThereisnodirectcounterparttotheProposedRuleintheDisciplinaryRules._EC_Ԁ7-8 i statesthat"[_a]dvice_Ԁofalawyertohisclientneednotbeconfinedtopurelylegalconsiderations. R ...Inassistinghisclienttoreachaproperdecision,itisoftendesirableforalawyertopointout ; thosefactorswhichmayleadtoadecisionthatismorallyjustaswellaslegallypermissible.... $ Inthefinalanalysis,however,...thedecisionwhethertoforegolegallyavailableobjectivesor   methodsbecauseofnonlegalfactorsisultimatelyfortheclient...."   ComparisonToABAModelRules  x   TheProposedRuleisidenticaltoABAModelRule2.1. M  ChangesMadeto1997CommitteePreliminaryDraftInResponsetoComments  o   Nochanges.   B #X XX2X W# CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges "! Made 2X XXX  #"   Nocommentsorchanges.f  g  % $     PROPOSEDRULE2.2  LAWYERSERVINGASINTERMEDIARYBETWEENCLIENTS       B.` hp x (#XB     (a)Alawyerrepresentsclientsasanintermediarywhenthelawyerprovidesimpartiallegal n adviceandassistancetotwoormoreclientswhoareengagedinacandidandnon-adversarial W efforttoaccomplishacommonobjectivewithrespecttotheformation,conduct,modification,or @  terminationofaconsensuallegalrelationbetweenthem. ) y   (b)Alawyerf  g f  g shallnotf  g Ԁrepresenttwoormoreclientsasanintermediaryinamatterf  g f  g unlessf  g :  K   (1)asbetweentheclients,thelawyerreasonablybelievesthatthemattercanbe       resolvedontermscompatiblewitheachoftheclients'bestinterests,thateachclient     willbeabletomakeadequatelyinformeddecisionsinthematter,thatthereislittle     riskofmaterialprejudicetotheinterestofanyoftheclientsifthecontemplated      resolutionisunsuccessful,andthattheintermediationcanbeundertakenimpartially; q      (2)thelawyersrepresentationofeachoftheclients,orthelawyersrelationshipwith C   each,willnotbeadverselyaffectedbythelawyer'sresponsibilitiestootherclientsor ,|   thirdpersons,orbythelawyer'sowninterests;#X XX2X #2X XXX  e   (3)thelawyerconsultswitheachclientabout: 7    ` (_i_)thelawyersresponsibilitiesasanintermediary;#X XX2X *#2X XXX       ` (ii)theimplicationsoftheintermediation(includingtheadvantagesandrisks     ` involvedandtheeffectontheattorneyclientprivilegeandanyother  t    ` obligationofconfidentialitythelawyermayhave);#X XX2X D#2X XXX  ]  ?+` ` hp x (#X?(iii)anycircumstancesthatwillmateriallyaffectthelawyersimpartiality / betweentheclients;and#X XX2X #2X XXX  h  B.` hp x (#` XB   ` (iv)thelawyersrepresentationinanothermatterofaclientwhoseinterests  :    ` aredirectlyadversetotheinterestsofanyoneoftheclients;andanyinterests !#     ` ofthelawyer,thelawyersotherclients,orthirdpersonsthatwillmaterially " !    ` limitthelawyersrepresentationofoneoftheclients;and #"   (4)eachclientconsentsinwritingtothelawyersrepresentationandeachclient  w% $   authorizesthelawyertodisclosetoeachoftheotherclientsbeingrepresentedinthe `&!%   matteranyinformationrelatingtotherepresentationthedisclosureofwhichthe  I'"&   lawyerreasonablybelievesisrequiredbyRule1.4. 2(#' (c)Whilerepresentingclientsasanintermediary,thelawyershall: *T%)   (1)actimpartiallytoassisttheclientsinaccomplishingtheircommonobjective; +&'+ Ї  (2)asbetweentheclients,treatinformationrelatingtotheintermediationas     informationprotectedbyRule1.6thatthelawyerhasbeenauthorizedbyeachclient    todisclosetotheotherclientstotheextentthelawyerreasonablybelievesnecessary    forthelawyertocomplywithRule1.4;and k   (3)shallconsultwitheachclientconcerningthedecisionstobemadewithrespectto =    theintermediationandconsiderationsrelevantinmakingthem,sothateachclientcan & v   makeadequatelyinformeddecisions.  _ (d)Alawyershallwithdrawfromserviceasanintermediaryif:  1    (1)anyoftheclientssorequests;    X?+ ` hp x (#X?(2)anyoftheclientsrevokesthelawyersauthoritytodisclosetotheotherclientsany   informationthatthelawyerwouldberequiredbyRule1.4torevealtothem;or n   XB.` hp x (#XB  (3)anyoftheotherconditionsstatedinparagraph(b)arenolongersatisfied. @ (e)Ifthelawyerswithdrawalisrequiredbyparagraph(d)(2)thelawyershallsoadviseeach b clientofthewithdrawal,butshalldosowithoutanyfurtherdisclosureofinformationprotected K byRule1.6. 4    COMMENT  $^  [1]AlawyeractsasanintermediaryunderthisRulewhenthelawyerrepresentstwoor  moreclientswhoarecooperativelytryingtoaccomplishacommonobjectivewithrespecttothe s formation,conduct,modification,orterminationofaconsensuallegalrelationbetweenthem. \ Thehallmarksofanintermediationincludetheimpartialityofthelawyerwhoservesas E intermediary,theopen,candid,andnon-adversarialnatureoftheclientspursuitofacommon .~ objective,andthelimitedsubjectmattersinwhichalawyermayservemultipleclientsasan g intermediary(i.e.,theadjustmentofaconsensuallegalrelationshipamongorbetweenthe  P clients).#X XX2X #X XXX f  Ԁg f  g Becauseintermediationdifferssignificantlyfromthepartisanrolenormallyplayedby  9 lawyers,andrequiresthatthelawyerbeimpartialasbetweentheclientsratherthananadvocate !"  onbehalfofeach,alawyershouldonlyundertakethisrolewithclientconsentafterconsultation " ! aboutthedistinctivefeaturesofthisrole.#X XXX o(#2X XXX ԀAlso,giventherisksf  g Ԁassociatedwithjoint #" representationofpartieswhoseinterestsmaypotentiallybeinconflict,theRuleprovidesa $# numberofsafeguardsdesignedtolimititsapplicabilityandtoprotecttheinterestsoftheseveral v% $ clients. _&!%   [2]Paragraph(b)specifiesthecircumstancesinwhichalawyermayservemultiple 1(#' clientsasanintermediary.Withrespecttotheclientsbeingservedasanintermediary,thisRule, )j$( andnotRule1.7,applies.Rule1.7remainsapplicable,however,toprotectotherclientsthe *S%) lawyermayberepresentingormaywishtorepresentinothermatters.Forexample,ifthe *<&* lawyersrepresentationoftwoclientsasanintermediaryinamatterwillmateriallylimitthe +%'+ lawyersrepresentationofanotherclientthelawyerisrepresentingasanadvocate,thelawyer  mustaffordthatclienttheprotectionsofRule1.7g .Similarly,ifthelawyersrepresentationof  twoclientsasanintermediarywouldbemateriallyadversetooneofthelawyersformerclients,  andthemattersaresubstantiallyrelated,thelawyermustaffordtheformerclienttheprotection k ofRule1.9. T   [3]Rule2.2doesnotapplytoalawyeractingasadisputeresolutionneutral,suchasan & v arbitratororamediator,asthepartiestoadisputeresolutionproceedingarenotclientsofthe  _ lawyer,evenwherethelawyerhasbeenappointedwiththeconcurrenceoftheparties.Other  H rulesofconductgovernalawyersserviceasadisputeresolutionneutral.SeeRule2.4and  1  TennesseeSupremeCourtRule31.    f  g   [4]#X XX2X `*#BecausethisRuleonlyappliestotheformation,conduct,modificationortermination   ofconsensuallegalrelationshipsbetweenclients,itdoesnotapplytotherepresentationof   multipleclientsinconnectionwithgratuitoustransfersorothermattersinwhichthereisnota n  quidproquoexchange.Thus,forexample,conflictsofinterestarisingfromtherepresentation W  ofmultipleclientsinestateplanningortheadministrationofanestatearegovernedbyRule1.7 @ ratherthanbythisRule.If,however,theeffectuationofanestateplanorothergratuitous )y transferentailstheformation,modificationorterminationofaconsensuallegalrelationship b betweenclients,andthelawyeractsasanintermediaryinconnectionwiththetransaction,this K Rule,andnotRule1.7,willapply.2X XXX  4 f  g   [f  g f  g 5f  g ]Alawyermayactasanintermediaryinseekingtoestablishoradjustaconsensual  legalrelationshipamongorbetweenclientsonanamicableandmutuallyadvantageousbasis:for  example,inhelpingtoorganizeabusinessinwhichtwoormoreclientsareentrepreneurs,  workingoutthefinancialreorganizationofanenterpriseinwhichtwoormoreclientshavean q interestf  g .Aspartoftheworkofanintermediary,thelawyermayseektoachievetheclients Z commonobjectiveortoresolvepotentiallyconflictinginterestsbydevelopingtheparties'mutual C interests.Thealternativemaybethateachpartymayhavetoobtainseparaterepresentation,with ,| thepossibilityinsomesituationsofincurringadditionalcost,complications,orevenlitigation. e Giventheseandotherrelevantfactors,eachclientmayprefertohaveonelawyeractasan N intermediaryforallratherthanhiringaseparatelawyertoserveashisorherpartisan.  7   [f  g f  g 6f  g ]Inconsideringwhethertoactasintermediarybetweenclients,alawyershouldbe " ! mindfulthat,iftheintermediationfails,theresultcanbeadditionalcost,embarrassment,and #" recrimination.Insomesituations,theriskoffailureissogreatthatintermediationisplainly $# impossibleorimprudentforthelawyerortheclients.Forexample,alawyercannotundertake t% $ commonrepresentationofclientsbetweenwhomcontentiouslitigationisimminentorwho ]&!% contemplatecontentiousnegotiations,asisoftenthecasewhendissolutionofamarriageis F'"& involved.Moregenerally,iftherelationshipbetweenthepartieshasalreadyassumeddefinite /(#' antagonism,thepossibilitythattheclients'interestscanbeadjustedbyintermediationordinarily )h$( isnotverygood. *Q%)   [f  g f  g 7f  g ]Theappropriatenessofintermediationcandependonitsform.Formsof#X XX2X G6#2X XXX  +#'+ Ѐintermediationrangefromaninformal"facilitation"inwhichthelawyersresponsibilitiesare  limitedtopresentingalternativesfromwhichtheclientswillchoosetoafull-blown  representationinwhichthelawyerprovidesalllegalservicesneededinconnectionwiththe  proposedtransaction.Oneformmaybeappropriateincircumstanceswhereanotherwouldnot. k Otherrelevantfactorsarewhetherthelawyersubsequentlywillrepresentbothpartiesona T continuingbasisf  g f  g ,f  g Ԁwhetherthesituationinvolvescreatingarelationshipbetweenthepartiesor =  terminatingonef  g ,andtherelativeexperience,sophistication,andeconomicbargainingpowerof & v theclients,ortheexistenceofpriorfamilial,business,orlegalrelationshipsf  g .  _ %   ConfidentialityandPrivilege  1  ]D  [f  g f  g 8f  g ]Aparticularlyimportantfactorindeterminingtheappropriatenessofintermediationis   theeffectonclientlawyerconfidentialityandtheattorneyclientprivilege.Inacommon   representation,thelawyerisstillrequiredbothtokeepeachclientadequatelyinformedandto   maintainconfidentialityofinformationrelatingtotherepresentation.SeeRules1.4and1.6. p  Complyingwithbothrequirementswhileactingasintermediaryrequiresadelicatebalance.If Y  thebalancecannotbemaintained,thecommonrepresentationisimproper. B   [f  g f  g 9f  g ]Paragraph(b)(4)and(c)(2)makesclearthattheobligationsofattorney-client d confidentialityapplytoclientsbeingservedbyalawyerasanintermediary,butthat,asbetween M theclientsbeingsoserved,confidentialityisinappropriateandmustbewaivedbyeachofthe 6 clients.Thus,whilethelawyermustmaintainconfidentialityasagainststrangerstothe  relationship,thelawyerhasnosuchdutytokeepinformationprovidedtothelawyerbyone  clientconfidentialfromtheotherclients.Moreover,thelawyermaywell,dependingonthe  circumstances,haveanaffirmativeobligationtodisclosesuchinformationobtainedfromone  clienttootherclients.Obviously,thisimportantimplicationofthelawyersresponsibilitiesas s anintermediarymustbedisclosedandexplainedtotheclients. \   [f  g f  g 10f  g ]Sincethelawyerisrequiredtobeimpartialbetweencommonlyrepresentedclients, .~ intermediationisimproperwhenthatimpartialitycannotbemaintained.Forexample,alawyer g whohasrepresentedoneoftheclientsforalongperiodandinavarietyofmattersmighthave  P difficultybeingimpartialbetweenthatclientandonetowhomthelawyerhasonlyrecentlybeen  9 introduced. !"    Consultation #" M  [1f  g f  g 1f  g ]Inactingasintermediarybetweenclients,thelawyerisrequiredtoconsultwiththe x% $ clientsontheimplicationsofdoingso,andproceedonlyuponconsentbasedonsucha a&!% consultation.Theconsultationshouldmakeclearthatthelawyer'sroleisnotthatofpartisanship J'"& normallyexpectedinothercircumstances.Thisconsentmustbeinwriting.  3(#'     [1f  g f  g 2f  g ]Paragraph(c)(3)isanapplicationoftheprincipleexpressedinRule1.4.Wherethe *U%) lawyerisintermediary,theclientsordinarilymustassumegreaterresponsibilityfordecisions *>&* thanwheneachclientisindependentlyrepresented. +''+ Ї  Withdrawal  Q  [1f  g f  g 3f  g ]Commonrepresentationdoesnotdiminishtherightsofeachclientintheclient  lawyerrelationship.Eachclienthastherighttoloyalanddiligentrepresentation,therightto m dischargethelawyerasstatedinRule1.16,andtheprotectionofRule1.9concerningobligations V toaformerclient. ?    [1f  g f  g 4f  g ]Becauseoftheobligationsofalawyerservingasanintermediarytothe  a intermediationclients,thelawyermustwithdrawfromtherepresentationifanyofthe  J intermediationclientssorequests;ifoneormoreoftheclientsdeniesthelawyertheauthorityto  3  disclosecertaininformationtoanyoftheremainingclients,therebypreventingthelawyerfrom    beingabletodischargethelawyersdutiestotheremainingclientstocommunicatewiththem   anddiscloseinformationtothem;orifanyofthevariouspredicaterequirementsfor   intermediationcannolongerbesatisfied.     [1f  g f  g 5f  g ]Uponwithdrawalfromtheroleofintermediaryorcompletionofanintermediation, Y  thelawyermustaffordalloftheclientsformerlyservedasanintermediarytheprotectionsof B Rules1.9and1.10. +{    _DEFINITIONAL_ԀCROSS-REFERENCES M OX "ConsentsinWriting"SeeRule1.0(b) ! "Consults"SeeRule1.0(c)   "Material"and MateriallySeeRule1.0(g)  "ReasonablyBelieves"SeeRule1.0(j)     COMMITTEENOTES ^ YComparisonToCurrentTennesseeEthicsRules 2   ThereisnodirectcounterparttotheProposedRuleintheDisciplinaryRules._EC_Ԁ520  V statesthata"lawyerisoftenaskedtoserveasanimpartialarbitratorormediatorinmatters  ? whichinvolvepresentorformerclients.Hemayserveineithercapacityifhefirstdisclosessuch !(  presentorformerrelationships."DR5105(B)providesthatalawyer"shallnotcontinue "! multipleemploymentiftheexerciseofhisindependentjudgmentinbehalfofaclientwillbeor #" islikelytobeadverselyaffectedbyhisrepresentationofanotherclient,orifitwouldbelikelyto $# involvehiminrepresentationofdifferinginterests,excepttotheextentpermittedunderDR5 |% $ 105(C)."DR5105(C)providesthat"alawyermayrepresentmultipleclientsifitisobviousthat e&!% hecanadequatelyrepresenttheinterestsofeachandifeachconsentstotherepresentationafter N'"& fulldisclosureofthepossibleeffectofsuchrepresentationontheexerciseofhisindependent 7(#' professionaljudgmentonbehalfofeach."  )p$(  ComparisonToABAModelRules *B&*  +,'+   TheProposedRuleembracestheconceptsunderlyingABAModelRule2.2,but  attemptstomorecomprehensivelyandspecificallytosetforththelawyersresponsibilitieswhen  undertakingtoserveasanimpartialintermediarybetweentwoclients.ModelRule2.2provides:     `    ?+ ` hp x (#X?RULE2.2Intermediary T   (a)Alawyermayactasintermediarybetweenclientsif: & v ?+` ` hp x (#(#X?0  0` (#(#(1)thelawyerconsultswitheachclientconcerningtheimplicationsofthe  H commonrepresentation,includingtheadvantagesandrisksinvolved,andthe  1  effectontheattorneyclientprivileges,andobtainseachclient'sconsenttothe    commonrepresentation; ` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#(2)thelawyerreasonablybelievesthatthemattercanberesolvedonterms   compatiblewiththeclients'bestinterests,thateachclientwillbeabletomake n  adequatelyinformeddecisionsinthematterandthatthereislittleriskofmaterial W  prejudicetotheinterestofanyoftheclientsifthecontemplatedresolutionis @ unsuccessful;and)y` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#(3)thelawyerreasonablybelievesthatthecommonrepresentationcanbe @  @  @  K undertakenimpartiallyandwithoutimpropereffectonotherresponsibilitiesthe @~"  @~"  4 lawyerhastoanyoftheclients.` (#` (# B+ ` hp x (#` ` X(#B  (b)Whileactingasintermediary,thelawyershallconsultwitheachclientconcerning    thedecisionstobemadeandtheconsiderationsrelevantinmakingthem,sothateach    clientcanmakeadequatelyinformeddecisions. q   (c)Alawyershallwithdrawasintermediaryifanyoftheclientssorequests,orifany C   oftheconditionsstatedinParagraph(a)isnolongersatisfied.Uponwithdrawal,the ,|   lawyershallnotcontinuetorepresentanyoftheclientsinthematterthatwasthe  e 0  subjectoftheintermediation.N(#(# B.` hp x (#XB ChangesMadeto1997CommitteePreliminaryDraftInResponsetoComments !      Paragraph(a):Nochanges. #"   Paragraph(b):Nochangeinsubstance.Compressionofconflictofintereststandards v% $ intotwoparagraphs.Eliminationofawkwardreferencesto"intermediationclients." _&!%   Paragraph(c):Nochangeinsubstance.Aseachpartytotheintermediationisthe 1(#' lawyersclient,theCommitteedeletedSubparagraphs(c)(2)and(3)asunnecessarilyrepetitive )j$( ofRules1.6and1.2. *S%)   *<&*   Paragraph(f):Aseachpartytoanintermediationisaclient,theCommitteedeleted   Paragraph(f)asunnecessarilyrepetitiveofRule1.9,whichlaysoutalawyersdutiestoformer  clients.   #X XX2X +@#CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges T Made2X XXX  >  f  #X XX2X Ѯn#  InresponsetosuggestionsfromtheTBATax,Probate,andTrustLawSection,the  b CommitteeproposesachangetoParagraph(b),theadditionofnewcomment[4],andsome  K minorchangestoComments[1],[5],and[7].ThechangeinParagraph(b)andthenew  4  Comment,togetherwiththeadditionofanewComment[22]toRule1.7,areintendedto    confirmandclarifythatRule1.7andRule2.2aremutuallyexclusive.Rule2.2governswhena   lawyerprovidesclientsimpartiallegaladviceandassistanceinconnectionwithaconsensual   transactionbetweenthem.Rule1.7appliestoallotherrepresentationsinwhichthelawyeris   presumedtoberepresentingeachclientasapartisanadvocate.Thisdistinctionishighlightedby q  thespecificationintheCommentsthattherepresentationofmultipleclientsinconnectionwith Z  gratuitoustransfersisgovernedbyRule1.7ratherthanRule2.2.Inthisregard,theCommittee C rejectedaproposaltoallowlawyerswhowouldrepresentmultiplepartiesinabusiness ,| transactiontochoosebetweenprovidingthemwithimpartialadviceandassistanceorserving e eachclientasapartisanadvocate.Thiswouldhavegiventhelawyerachoiceofcomplyingwith N eitherRule1.7orRule2.2.TheCommitteeopposessuchanapproachbecauseitbelievesthat 7 advocacyandintermediationaremutuallyexclusiveroles,andthatpartisanadvocacyisnotan   appropriaterolewhenalawyerisrepresentingtwoclientsinaconsensualtransactionbetween   them.  2X XXX  f  g  t     PROPOSEDRULE2.3  EVALUATIONFORUSEBYTHIRDPERSONS   awvv (a)Alawyermayundertakeanevaluationofamatteraffectingaclientfortheuseofsomeone n otherthantheclientif: W 0  (1)thelawyerreasonablybelievesthatmakingtheevaluationiscompatiblewithother ) y aspectsofthelawyer'srelationshipwiththeclient;and b(#(# 0  (2)theclientconsentsafterconsultation. 4 (#(# (b)Exceptasdisclosureisrequiredinconnectionwithareportofanevaluation,information   relatingtotheevaluationisotherwiseprotectedbyRule1.6.      COMMENT  q   y  Definition  E  z  [1]Anevaluationmaybeperformedattheclient'sdirectionbutfortheprimarypurpose h ofestablishinginformationforthebenefitofthirdparties;forexample,anopinionconcerning Q thetitleofpropertyrenderedatthebehestofavendorfortheinformationofaprospective : purchaser,oratthebehestofaborrowerfortheinformationofaprospectivelender.Insome # situations,theevaluationmayberequiredbyagovernmentagency;forexample,anopinion   concerningthelegalityofthesecuritiesregisteredforsaleunderthesecuritieslaws.Inother  instances,theevaluationmayberequiredbyathirdperson,suchasapurchaserofabusiness.    [2]Lawyersforthegovernmentmaybecalledupontogiveaformalopiniononthe ` legalityofcontemplatedgovernmentagencyaction.Inmakingsuchanevaluation,the I governmentlawyeractsatthebehestofthegovernmentastheclientbutforthepurposeof 2 establishingthelimitsoftheagency'sauthorizedactivity.Suchanopinionistobedistinguished k fromconfidentiallegaladvicegivenagencyofficials.Thecriticalquestioniswhetherthe  T opinionistobemadepublic.  =   [3]Alegalevaluationshouldbedistinguishedfromaninvestigationofapersonwith "! whomthelawyerdoesnothaveaclient-lawyerrelationship.Forexample,alawyerretainedbya #" purchasertoanalyzeavendor'stitletopropertydoesnothaveaclient-lawyerrelationshipwith $# thevendor.Soalso,aninvestigationintoaperson'saffairsbyagovernmentlawyer,orbyspecial z% $ counselemployedbythegovernment,isnotanevaluationasthattermisusedinthisRule.The c&!% questioniswhetherthelawyerisretainedbythepersonwhoseaffairsarebeingexamined.When L'"& thelawyerisretainedbythatperson,thegeneralrulesconcerningloyaltytoclientand 5(#' preservationofconfidencesapply,whichisnotthecaseifthelawyerisretainedbysomeone )n$( else.Forthisreason,itisessentialtoidentifythepersonbywhomthelawyerisretained.This *W%) shouldbemadeclearnotonlytothepersonunderexamination,butalsotootherstowhomthe *@&* resultsaretobemadeavailable. +)'+ _   DutytoThirdPerson     [4]Whentheevaluationisintendedfortheinformationoruseofathirdperson,alegal m dutytothatpersonmayormaynotarise.ThatlegalquestionisbeyondthescopeoftheseRules. V However,sincesuchanevaluationinvolvesadeparturefromthenormalclient-lawyer ?  relationship,carefulanalysisofthesituationisrequired.Thelawyermustbesatisfiedasamatter ( x ofprofessionaljudgmentthatmakingtheevaluationiscompatiblewithotherfunctions  a undertakeninbehalfoftheclient.Forexample,ifthelawyerisactingasadvocateindefending  J theclientagainstchargesoffraud,itwouldnormallybeincompatiblewiththatresponsibilityfor  3  thelawyertoperformanevaluationforothersconcerningthesameorarelatedtransaction.    Assumingnosuchimpedimentisapparent,however,thelawyershouldadvisetheclientofthe   implicationsoftheevaluation,particularlythelawyer'sresponsibilitiestothirdpersonsandthe   dutytodisseminatethefindings.      AccesstoandDisclosureofInformation  Y    [5]Thequalityofanevaluationdependsonthefreedomandextentoftheinvestigation ,| uponwhichitisbased.Ordinarilyalawyershouldhavewhateverlatitudeofinvestigationseems e necessaryasamatterofprofessionaljudgment.Undersomecircumstances,however,theterms N oftheevaluationmaybelimited.Forexample,certainissuesorsourcesmaybecategorically 7 excluded,orthescopeofsearchmaybelimitedbytimeconstraintsorthe_noncooperation_Ԁof   personshavingrelevantinformation.Anysuchlimitationswhicharematerialtotheevaluation   shouldbedescribedinthereport.Ifafteralawyerhascommencedanevaluation,theclient  refusestocomplywiththetermsuponwhichitwasunderstoodtheevaluationwastohavebeen  made,thelawyer'sobligationsaredeterminedbylaw,havingreferencetothetermsofthe t client'sagreementandthesurroundingcircumstances. ]    FinancialAuditors'RequestsforInformation  /   [6]Whenaquestionconcerningthelegalsituationofaclientarisesattheinstanceofthe  R client'sfinancialauditorandthequestionisreferredtothelawyer,thelawyer'sresponsemaybe  ; madeinaccordancewithproceduresrecognizedinthelegalprofession.Suchaprocedureisset !$  forthintheAmericanBarAssociationStatementofPolicyRegardingLawyers'Responsesto " ! Auditors'RequestsforInformation,adoptedin1975.  #"   _DEFINITIONAL_ԀCROSSREFERENCES  y% $   ConsultationSeeRule1.0(c) L'"&  ReasonablyBelievesSeeRule1.0(j) 5(#'    COMMITTEENOTES *W%)    ComparisonToCurrentTennesseeEthicsRules ++'+    ThereisnocounterparttotheProposedRuleintheDisciplinaryRules.   ComparisonToABAModelRules l    TheProposedRuleisidenticaltoABAModelRule2.3. ?   ChangesMadeto1997CommitteePreliminaryDraftInResponsetoComments   b     Nochanges.  5  #X XX2X Kv# CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges   Made 2X XXX    #X XX2X ѽ#f    TheAttorneyGeneralhasvoicedconcernthattheProposedRuleconflictswiththe t  AttorneyGeneralsobligationunderstatelawtorenderlegalopinionsinresponsetorequests ]  fromvariousstateofficials.TheCommitteeseesnoneedtospecificallyaddressthisconflictin F Rule2.3becauseScope,Paragraph[4],indicatesthattheRulesofProfessionalConductarenot / intendedtoabrogatethestatutoryauthorityoralterthestatutoryresponsibilitiesoftheAttorney h General.AlsowithrespecttotheAttorneyGeneralsspecificconcernabouttheneedtoobtain Q theconsentofanagencyheadpriortorenderinganopinionaboutthedutiesofthatagency,the : CommitteewouldnotethattheStatemaywellhavegiven consenttohavetheAttorney # GeneralrendersuchopinionsbyvirtueoflegislativeenactmentsconcerningtheAttorney   Generalsauthorityandduties.2X XXX   f  g   _      PROPOSEDRULE2.4  LAWYERASDISPUTERESOLUTIONNEUTRAL   ՙ aw(a)Alawyerservesasadisputeresolutionneutralwhenthelawyerimpartiallyassiststwoor m morepersonswhoarenotclientsofthelawyertoreacharesolutionofdisputesthathavearisen V betweenthem.Serviceasadisputeresolutionneutralmayincludeserviceasamediator,an ?  arbitratorwhosedecisiondoesnotbindtheparties,acaseevaluator,orajudgeorjurorina ( x minitrialorsummaryjurytrialasdescribedinSupremeCourtRule31,orinsuchothercapacity  a aswillenablethelawyertoimpartiallyassistthepartiesresolvetheirdispute. x    J (b)Alawyermayserveasadisputeresolutionneutralinamatterif:      (1)thelawyeriscompetenttohandlethematter;      `   (2)thelawyercanhandlethematterwithoutunduedelay;#X XX2X [#2X XXX  p    (3)thelawyerreasonablybelievesheorshecanbeimpartialasbetweenthe  B   parties;#X XX2X p#2X XXX  +{ ` ` (4)noneofthepartiestothedisputeisbeingrepresentedbythelawyerinothermatters;#X XX2X W#2X XXX  M (5)thelawyersserviceasadisputeresolutionneutralinthematterwillnotbeadversely  affectedbytherepresentationofclientswithinterestsdirectlyadversetoanyofthe  partiestothedispute,orbythelawyersresponsibilitiestoaclientorathirdperson,or  bythelawyersowninterests;#X XX2X 9#2X XXX      ` (6)thelawyerconsultswitheachofthepartiestothedispute,ortheirattorneys,aboutthe \ lawyersqualificationsandexperienceasadisputeresolutionneutral,therulesand E procedureswhichwillbefollowedintheproceeding,andthelawyersresponsibilitiesas .~ adisputeresolutionneutral,provided,however,thatanypartytothedisputewhois g representedbyalawyermaywaivehisorherrighttoallorpartoftheconsultation  P requiredbythisparagraph;#X XX2X (#2X XXX Ԁ  9 (7)thelawyerconsultswitheachoftheparties,ortheirlawyers,aboutanyinterestsof " ! thelawyer,thelawyersclients,theclientsofotherlawyerswithwhomthelawyeris #" associatedinafirm,orthirdpersonswhichmaymateriallyaffectthelawyers $# impartialityinthematter;_#X XX2X #2X XXX _ v% $  `    (8)unlesstheserviceispursuanttoSupremeCourtRule31,eachoftheparties,ortheir H'"& attorneys,consentsinwritingtothelawyersserviceasadisputeresolutionneutralinthe 1(#' matter;and )j$(   (9)iftheserviceispursuanttoSupremeCourtRule31,thelawyerisqualifiedtoservein *<&*   accordancewiththerequirementsofthatRule. +%'+ Ї(c)Whileservingasadisputeresolutionneutral,alawyershall:  (1)actreasonablytoassurethatthepartiesunderstandtherulesandprocedureswhich  willbefollowedintheproceedingandthelawyersresponsibilitiesasadispute k resolutionneutral;#X XX2X ¦#2X XXX  T iҀ0  (2)actimpartially,competentlyandexpeditiouslytoassistthepartiesresolvethematters & v indispute;#X XX2X у#2X XXX  _(#(# 0  (3)promotemutualrespectamongthepartiesforthedisputeresolutionprocess;#X XX2X w#2X XXX  1 (#(#    ` 0  (4)asbetweenthepartiestothedisputeandthirdpersons,treatallinformationrelatedto   thedisputeasifitwereinformationprotectedbyRules1.6f  g f  g Ԁandf  g Ԁ1.8(b),f  f  #X XX2X 6#2X XXX g  (#(# 0  (5)asbetweenthepartiestothedispute,treatallinformationobtainedinanindividual n  caucuswithapartyorapartyslawyerasifitwereinformationrelatedtothe W  representationofaclientprotectedbyRules1.6,f  g Ԁand1.f  g f  g 8f  g (b);#X XX2X ̭#2X XXX f  g @(#(# Ѐ0  (6)rendernolegaladvicetoanypartytothedispute,but,ifthelawyerbelievesthatan b unrepresentedpartydoesnotunderstandhowaproposedagreementmightf  g affecthisor K herlegalrightsorobligations,thelawyershalladvisethatpartytoseektheadviceof 4 independentcounsel;#X XX2X Ѯ#2X XXX (#(#    ` 0  (7)acceptnothingofvalue,otherthanfullydisclosedreasonablecompensationfor  servicesrenderedasthedisputeresolutionneutral,fromaparty,apartyslawyer,orany  otherpersoninvolvedorinterestedinthedisputeresolutionprocess;#X XX2X ѣ#2X XXX q(#(#    ` 0  (8)notseektocoerceorunfairlyinfluenceapartytoacceptaproposalforresolutionofa C matterindisputeandshallnotmakeanysubstantivedecisionsonbehalfofaparty;and,|(#(#    ` 0  (9)iftheserviceispursuanttoSupremeCourtRule31,complywithallotherdutiesofa N disputeresolutionneutralassetforthintheRule. 7(#(#    ` (d)Alawyershallwithdrawfromserviceasadisputeresolutionneutralor,ifappointedbya " ! court,shallseekthecourtspermissiontowithdrawfromserviceasadisputeresolutionneutral #" if: $# (1)anyofthepartiessorequests;#X XX2X K#2X XXX  ]&!% 0  (2)thelawyerreasonablybelievesthatfurtherdisputef  Ԁf  g resolutionserviceswillnotleadto /(#' anagreementresolvingthematterindisputeorthatanyofthepartiesisunwillingor )h$( unabletocooperatewiththelawyersdisputeresolutioninitiatives;or*Q%)(#(#    ` 0  (3)anyoftheconditionsstatedinparagraph(b)arenolongersatisfied.+#'+(#(# Ї(e)Uponterminationofalawyersserviceasadisputeresolutionneutral,thelawyer:  (1)may,withtheconsentofallthepartiestothedispute,incompliancewiththe  requirementsofRules1.2(c)and2.2,#X XX2X #2X XXX draftasettlementagreementthatresultsfromthe k disputeresolutionprocess,butshallnototherwiserepresentanyorallofpartiesin T connectionwiththematter,and =  (2)shallaffordeachpartytothedisputetheprotectionsaffordedaclientbyRules1.6,  _ 1.8(b),and1.9.  H   COMMENT     =  {  [1]Mediation,arbitration,andotherformsofalternativedisputeresolutionhavebeenin   useformanyyears,butincreasingdemandsinrecentyearsformorepromptandefficientmeans   ofresolvingdisputesofallkindshaveledtoanincreaseinthedemandfortheservicesofdispute o  resolutionneutralsskilledintheanalysisofdisputesandinconflictresolution.Lawyersareoften X  particularlywellsuitedtoperformthisroleandshouldbeencouragedtodoso. A   [2]Althoughserviceasadisputeresolutionneutralisconsideredalawrelatedservice c governedgenerallybytheseRules(seeRule5.7),theuniquenatureofalawyersrolewhen L servingasadisputeresolutionneutraldemandsseparate,morespecific,treatmentinthisRulefor 5 theguidanceoftheprofessionandthepublic.    [3]ThisRuleprovidesthatalawyermayserveasadisputeresolutionneutral,whetheras  amediator,nonbindingarbitrator,acaseevaluator,orjudgeorjurorinaminitrialorsummary  jurytrial.Thescopeofalawyerspossibleserviceasaneutralisintendedtobegenerallythe r sameasthatadoptedinTennesseeSupremeCourtRule31governingcourtannexedalternative [ disputeresolution.WhileRule31coversonlycourtannexedalternativedisputeresolution, D however,thisRulecoversservicesasadisputeresolutionneutralwhetherrenderedin -} connectionwithcourtannexeddisputeresolutionproceedingsorinanother,perhapswholly f privatecontextnotcoveredbyRule31. O   [4]ThisRuledoesnotcovertherenderingbyalawyerofservicesrelatedtoalternative !!  disputeresolutionthatarenotneutralinnature,butaremorejudicialinnature,suchasserviceas " ! anarbitratorinabindingarbitration.AlthoughRule5.7mayaddressalawyersobligationsin #" suchacontext,thisRuledoesnotpurporttoaddressthem. $#   [5]AlthoughalawyerwhoservesasadisputeresolutionneutralissubjecttotheRulesof ^&!% ProfessionalConduct(seeRule5.7),manyoftheRulesdonotdirectlyapplytosuchservice G'"& becausetheparticipantsinadisputeresolutionproceedingarenotthelawyersclients.Other 0(#' Rulesdoapply,however,andthisRulefurtherprovidesspecificapplicationsofcertainrulesthat )i$( mustapplydifferentlyinthiscontext(including,forexample,theapplicationofrulesgoverning *R%) conflictsofinterest). *;&*  +$'+   [6]AlthoughtherequirementsofthisRulearegenerallyintendedtobeconsistentwith  thoseimposedondisputeresolutionneutralsunderRule31,therearedutiesadditionaltothose  setoutinRule31thatareimposedonlawyerswhoserveinthisrole.SeealsoStandardsof  ProfessionalConductforRule31Mediators.Eventhough_nonlawyers_#X XX2X m#2X XXX ԀcertifiedbytheSupreme k CourtunderRule31asdisputeresolutionneutralsmaynotbesubjecttotheseRulesandthe T partiestothedisputearenotdeemedtobetheclientsofthelawyerservingastheirdispute =  resolutionneutral,thepartiesareproperlyentitledtoassumethatlawyersservinginthiscapacity & v arelargelysubjecttothesamebroadstandardsofconductasareapplicabletolawyerswhenthey  _ areprovidinglegalservicestoclients.  H   [7]TheCourthassetforthinRule31rulesandstandardsofprofessionalconduct    applicabletoallRule31neutrals,includingbothlawyersand_nonlawyers_.Thus,paragraph(b)   contemplatesthatalawyermayserveasaRule31neutralifthelawyercomplieswiththese   requirements.Paragraph(b)(9)requiresthatalawyerservingasadisputeresolutionneutral   pursuanttoSupremeCourtRule31mustcomplyfullywiththerequirementsofthatRule. n  ?+ 4 <DL!X?  [8]Paragraph(b)specifiesthecircumstancesinwhichalawyermayservepartiestoa @ disputeasadisputeresolutionneutral.Withrespecttothepartiestothedispute,Rule1.7is )y inapplicablebecausethereisnoattorneyclientrelationshipbetweentheneutralandtheparties b tothedispute.Rule1.7remainsapplicable,however,toprotectaclient,asdistinctfromparties K thelawyerisservingasaneutral,ifthelawyersserviceasaneutralwillmateriallylimitthe 4 lawyersrepresentationoftheclient.Similarly,ifthelawyersserviceasaneutralwouldbe  materiallyadversetooneofthelawyersformerclients,andthemattersaresubstantiallyrelated,  thelawyermustaffordtheformerclienttheprotectionofRule1.9.?+ 4 <DL!X?2qX2X   #2X X2q#  [9]Conflictsofinterestforlawyersservingasdisputeresolutionneutralsarespecifically %u addressed,giventhefactthat,althoughpartiestoadisputeresolutionproceedingarenotthe ^ clientsofthedisputeresolutionneutral,thelawyerservingasneutralmustbeimpartial,must G fullydiscloseanypertinentrelationshipstothepartiestotheproceeding,andmustobtaintheir 0 consenttothelawyersservicebasedonthesedisclosures.Notethat,althoughparagraph(b)(4)  doesnotprovideformandatoryvicariousdisqualificationbasedonalawyerscurrentor  prospectiveserviceasadisputeresolutionneutral,thefactthat,forexample,alawyeraskedto   serveasaneutralhasapartnerwhocurrentlyrepresentsoneofthepartiestothedisputeinother !  matterswouldobviouslyhavetodisclosethisfacttothepartiesunder(b)(7)andobtainconsent m"! toserviceasaneutral.Ofcourse,thislawyerwouldalsohavetohaveareasonablebeliefthat V#" impartialitywaspossibledespitethisandothersuchpertinentrelationships.f  g Ԁ#X XX2X ##ԀIfalawyermaynot ?$# makethedisclosuresrequiredbyparagraph(b)(7)becauseofhisconfidentialityobligationstoa (%x $ client,thenthelawyermaynotserveasadisputeneutral.2X XXX f  g  &a!%   [10]Paragraph(c)furtherprovidesvariousstandardsofconductparticulartoservicebya '3#' lawyerasadisputeresolutionneutral.Again,theserulesofconductareintendedtobe ($( consistentwithRule31andtoaddresstheparticularsituationofaneutral,whooccupiesa )%) significantlydifferentrelationshiptoparticipantsinadisputeresolutionproceedingthana *%* lawyerdoeswithclients.Paragraphs(c)(4)and(c)(5)treattheconfidentialityofallinformation +&+ relatedtothedispute(includingthatobtainedinindividualcaucuseswiththeparties)byanalogy  totheRulesconcerningtheconfidentialityofclientinformation.Thus,forexample,any  questionconcerningthepotentialdisclosureoffraudbyaparticipantinadisputeresolution  proceedingwouldbeaddressedunderRules1.6,3.3or4.1asthoughtheparticipantwere,in k fact,aclientofthelawyer.Otherportionsofparagraph(c),suchasthebanonundisclosed T compensationbyoneoftheparticipantsinparagraph(c)(7),theprohibitiononcoercionor =  decisionmakingonbehalfofpartiesinparagraph(c)(8),andthebanongivinglegaladviceto & v theparticipantsinparagraph(c)(6),imposerestrictionsneededtoinsureandreinforcethe  _ necessaryimpartialityofthelawyerservingasadisputeresolutionneutral.  H   [11]Paragraph(d)requiresthatalawyerservingasadisputeresolutionneutralwithdraw    orseekanappointingcourtspermissiontowithdrawincertainspecifiedcircumstances,suchas   arequestbyapartytodosoorthelawyersreasonablebeliefthatthelawyersservicewillnot   befruitful.     [12]Paragraph(e)establishesalawyersdutiestowardparticipantsinadispute W  resolutionproceedingupontheterminationofthelawyersserviceasaneutralforanyreason, @ whetherbecauseasettlementisachievedorbecauseapartyrequeststhelawyerswithdrawal. )y Giventheimpartialroleofadisputeresolutionneutral,itisinappropriateforalawyerwhohad b servedasadisputeresolutionneutraltolaterrepresentanyofthepartiestothedisputein K connectionwiththesubjectmatterofthatdisputeresolutionproceedingf  g .Thisg disqualification, 4 however,doesnotextendtootherlawyersassociatedinalawfirmwiththedisputeresolution  neutral.f  g Ԁ#X XX2X F#If,however,thepartieshavesuccessfullyresolvedtheirdispute,paragraph(e)(1)  permitsthelawyerneutraltodrafttheagreementsettlingtheirdispute,butthismustbedonein  conformitywithRules1.2(c)and2.2.2X XXX Ԁ    [13]f  g ԀFurther,paragraph(e)(2)providesthat,eventhoughtheparticipantstoaconcluded Z disputeresolutionproceedingwerenottheclientsofthelawyerwhoservedasadispute C resolutionneutralinthatproceeding,theseparticipantsareneverthelessentitledtothe ,| protectionsrelatingtoconfidentialityandconflictsofinterestaffordedf  g byRules1.6,1.8(b),and e 1.9f  g Ԁasiftheywereformerclientsf  g .f  g Ԁf   N    _DEFINITIONAL_ԀCROSSREFERENCES  !    ConsentsinWritingSeeRule1.0(b) #"  Consultationand ConsultsSeeRule1.0(c) $#  FirmSeeRule1.0(d) u% $  MateriallySeeRule1.0(g) ^&!%  Reasonableand ReasonablySeeRule1.0(_i_) G'"&  ReasonablyBelievesSeeRule1.0(j) 0(#'   COMMITTEENOTES  *R%)  ComparisonToCurrentTennesseeEthicsRules +('+    ThereisnocounterparttothisRuleintheDisciplinaryRules.    Withthefollowingexceptions,g theCommitteef  g ԀintendedtoconformRule2.4toSupreme k CourtRule31: T    ` 1.Theconflictofinterestdisclosurerulesinparagraph(b)(5)differfromthosein & v 0  Rule31.OurpurposewastoconformthedisclosurerequirementstoRule1.7(b)inthose  _ casesinwhichthelawyersserviceasadisputeresolutionneutralisnotpursuanttoRule  H 31.WewouldrecommendthatRule31beconformedtotheRulesofProfessional  1  Conduct.  (#(#    ` 2.Paragraph(b)(6)differsfromRule31inthatithasbeenconformedtoModel   0  Ruleterminologyandwepermitpartiesrepresentedbycounseltowaivethis   consultation.n (#(#  ComparisonToABAModelRules @    ThereisnocounterparttothisRuleintheABAModelRules. c  ChangesMadeto1997CommitteePreliminaryDraftInResponsetoComments  6   InresponsetorecommendationsfromtheAlternativeDisputeResolutionCommission,   theCommitteemadethefollowingtwochangestothePreliminaryDraft:    Paragraph(b):Paragraph(b)wasrestructuredsothatitsprovisionsareapplicabletoall t _ADR_Ԁproceedings,whetherornotorderedpursuanttoRule31.Compliancewithadditional ] requirementsimposedbyRule31isnowmandatedbySubparagraph(b)(9). F   Paragraph(e):Paragraph(e)(1)hasbeenamendedtonarrowthecircumstancesinwhich h alawyerwhohasservedasadisputeresolutionmaysubsequentlyrepresentoneormoreofthe  Q partiesthelawyerservedasaneutral.Thepreliminarydraftpermittedsuchsubsequent  : representationifallthepartiesconsented.Thefinaldraftpermitsthelawyer,withconsentofall !#  theparties,todraftasettlementagreementthathasresultedfromthedisputeresolutionprocess, " ! butotherwiseprohibitsrepresentationinconnectionwiththematter. #"   TheCommitteef  alsoaddedComment[8]andf  g Ԁreorderedf  g thef  g Commentsf  . w% $  f  g CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges I'"& Made 3(#' f  #X XX2X #   1.TheCommitteehascorrectedaninaccuratecrossreferenceinParagraphs(c)(4)and *W%) (c)(5). *@&*  +)'+   2.TheBoardofProfessionalResponsibilityhasrecommendedthatParagraphs(c)(4)and  (5)beamendedtoempowerthepartiestowaivetheconfidentialitytowhichtheywouldotherbe  entitledbyRules1.6,1.8(b),and1.9(c).ThechangerecommendedbytheBoardisunnecessary  andwouldberedundantbecauseallthreeofthecrossreferencedconfidentialityrulesprovide k thatclientscanconsenttodisclosureoradverseuseofotherwiseprotectedinformation.If, T however,theCourtbelievesthatthispointneedstobemademorespecificallyinRule2.4,the =  CommitteewouldrecommendaddinganewfifthsentencetoComment[10]thatwouldread: & v  Also,likeaclient,apartybeingservedbyalawyerasadisputeresolutionneutralmayconsent  _ todisclosureoruseofinformationthatotherwisewouldbeprohibitedbyRules1.6or1.8(b).  H   3.MikeHester,onbehalfoftheKnoxvilleBarAssociation,hasvoicedconcernthat    paragraph(b)(7)requiresalawyer/neutraltoconsultwiththepartiesaboutanyinterestsofthe   lawyersclientsthatmaymateriallyaffectthelawyersimpartiality.Theconcernisthatthismay   requireadisclosurethatwouldbeprohibitedbyRule1.6.TheCommitteesresponseistomake   nochangetotheconsultationrequirement,becausepartiestoadisputeresolutionprocessmust n  beadvisediftheneutralsrepresentationofaclientwillmateriallylimittheneutrals W  impartiality.Rather,theCommitteehasaddedasentencetoComment[9]thatclarifiesthat,ifa @ lawyercannotmakeadisclosurerequiredbyParagraph(b)(7)becauseitwouldrequire )y disclosureofinformationrelatingtoaclientsrepresentationandtheclienthasnotconsentedto b thedisclosure,thelawyersimplycannotserveasaneutralbecausethelawyercannotprovidethe K consultationneededforthepartiesconsenttobeeffective.Thisisnodifferentthanthe 4 outcomethatwouldresultifalawyerneededconsentofaclienttoarepresentationaffectedbya  conflictofinterestandcouldnotprovidetheclientwithinformationtheclientneededtomakean  adequatelyinformeddecisionaboutwhethertoconsenttotheconflict.    4.Mr.HesterhasalsovoicedconcernabouttherequirementinParagraph(c)(6)that if q thelawyerbelievesthatanunrepresentedpartydoesnotunderstandhowaproposedagreement Z mightadverselyaffecthisorherlegalrightsorobligations,thelawyershalladvisethepartyto C seektheadviceofindependentcounsel.Theconcernisthatthiswillserveasa redflagthat ,| theagreementisabadoneandthatsuchconductisinconsistentwiththeroleofaneutral.The e Committeesresponseisnottodeletetheobligationtoadvisetheunrepresentedpartytoseek N independentcounsel.Rather,theCommitteeproposesthatParagraph(c)(6)bemodifiedto  7 neutralizetheobligationsoitappliesnotonlywhentherewouldbeanadverselegaleffectbut !   ratheratanytimethelawyerbelievesthatanunrepresentedpartydoesnotunderstandthelegal " ! effectofaproposedagreement.TheCommitteewouldalsonotethatthisobligationcanbe #" satisfiedbygivingthisadvicetoallunrepresentedpartiesattheoutsetofthedisputeresolution $# process. t% $   5.Mr.JoeManuel,ofChattanooga,hasobjectedtoParagraph(e)(1)totheextentthatit F'"& permitsalawyerwhohasservedpartiesinadisputeresolutionprocesstosubsequentlydraft /(#' theirsettlementagreement.Apartfromthisgeneralobjection,heisespeciallytroubledbecause )h$( theRuleappearstopermitalawyerwhohadwithdrawnasthemediatorpriortothecompletion *Q%) oftheprocesstothereafterdrafttheagreementtheresultedfromtheprocess.Althoughthe *:&* CommitteedoesnotagreewithMr.Manuelthatthereshouldbeanabsolutebaragainstthe +#'+ neutraldraftingtheagreementbetweentheparties,itisrecommendingthatParagraph(e)(1)be  modifiedtorequirethelawyertocomplywithRule1.2(c)(limitedrepresentationmustbe  reasonableunderthecircumstances)andRule2.2(specialrulesapplicablewhenlawyersserves  asanintermediarybetweenclientsinatransactionbetweenthem).Thisisbecausethelawyer k whoisdraftingtheagreementhaschangedroles.Heorsheisnolongerservingthepartiesasa T disputeresolutionneutral,butisnowundertakingtheirrepresentationasanintermediary =  betweenclients.ThisispartiallyresponsivetoMr.Manuelsconcernbecausetherewillbe & v instancesinwhichcircumstancesarisinginconnectionwiththedisputeresolutionprocesswould  _ precludethelawyerfromthereafterdraftingtheagreementasaRule2.2intermediary.2X XXX    H f  g #X XX2X #2X XXX    1      CHAPTER3  ADVOCATE  PROPOSEDRULE3.1 n MERITORIOUSCLAIMSANDCONTENTIONS  X { dv  Alawyershallnotbringordefend,orcontinuewiththeprosecutionordefenseofa + { proceeding,orassertorcontrovert,orcontinuetoassertorcontrovert,anissuethereinunless,  d afterreasonableinquiry,thelawyerhasabasisfordoingsothatisnotfrivolous,whichincludes  M agoodfaithargumentforanextension,modification,orreversalofexistinglaw.Alawyerfor  6  thedefendantinacriminalproceeding,ortherespondentinaproceedingthatcouldresultin    incarceration,mayneverthelesssodefendtheproceedingastorequirethateveryelementofthe   casebeestablished.      COMMENT  s  E  [1]Theadvocatehasadutytouselegalprocedureforthefullestbenefitoftheclient's F cause,butalsoadutynottoabuselegalprocedure.Thelawbothproceduralandsubstantive, / establishesthelimitswithinwhichanadvocatemayproceed.However,thelawisnotalways h clearandneverisstatic.Accordingly,indeterminingtheproperscopeofadvocacy,account Q mustbetakenofthelaw'sambiguitiesandpotentialforchange. :   [2]Thefilingofanactionordefenseorsimilaractiontakenforaclientisnotfrivolous   merelybecausethefactshavenotfirstbeenfullysubstantiatedorbecausethelawyerexpectsto  developvitalevidenceonlybydiscovery.Whatisrequiredoflawyers,however,isthattheyact  reasonablytoinformthemselvesaboutthefactsoftheirclientscaseandthelawapplicableto w thecaseandthenactreasonablyindeterminingthattheycanmakenonfrivolousargumentsin ` supportoftheirclientsposition.Suchanactionisnotfrivolouseventhoughthelawyerbelieves I thattheclient'spositionultimatelywillnotprevail.Theactionisfrivolous,however,iftheclient 2 desirestohavetheactiontakenprimarilyforthepurposeofharassingormaliciouslyinjuringa k personorifthelawyerisunableeithertomakeanonfrivolousargumentonthemeritsofthe  T actiontakenortosupporttheactiontakenbyanonfrivolousargumentforanextension,  = modificationorreversalofexistinglaw. !&    [3]AlthoughthisRuledoesnotprecludealawyerforadefendantinacriminalmatter #" fromdefendingtheproceedingsoastorequirethateveryelementofthecasebeestablished,the $# defenseattorneymustnotfilefrivolousmotionsandmustgivenoticetotheprosecutionifthe z% $ lawyerdecidestoabandonanaffirmativedefensethatthelawyerhadpreviouslyindicatedwould c&!% bepresentedinthecase. L'"&   [4]Priortofilingacomplaintinacivilmatter,alawyershouldactreasonablytopromote )n$( settlementofthematterindispute,includingconsultationwiththeclientabouttheuseof *W%) mediationorotheralternativemeansofdisputeresolution. *@&*  +)'+    _DEFINITIONAL_ԀCROSSREFERENCES    ReasonableSeeRule1.0(_i_)     COMMITTEENOTES  U  ComparisonToCurrentTennesseeEthicsRules  ( x   DR7-102(A)(1)providesthatalawyermaynot"f  g [_f]ile_f  g Ԁasuit,assertaposition,conducta  M defense,delayatrial,ortakeotheractiononbehalfoftheclientwheng thelawyerf  g Ԁknowsorwhen  6  itisobviousthatsuchactionwouldservemerelytoharassormaliciouslyinjureanother."    ProposedRule3.1istothesamegeneraleffectasDR7-102(A)(1),withthreequalifications.   First,thetestofimproperconductischangedfrom"merelytoharassormaliciouslyinjure   another"totherequirementthattherebeabasisforthelitigationmeasureinvolvedthatis"not   frivolous."ThisincludestheconceptstatedinDR7-102(A)(2)thatalawyermayadvancea s  claimordefenseunwarrantedbyexistinglawif"itcanbesupportedbygoodfaithargumentfor \  anextension,modification,orreversalofexistinglaw."Second,thetestinRule3.1isan E objectivetest,whereasDR7-102(A)(1)appliedonlyifthelawyer"knowsorwhenitisobvious" .~ thatthelitigationisfrivolous.Third,Rule3.1hasanexceptionthatinacriminalcase,oracase g inwhichincarcerationoftheclientmayresult(forexample,certainjuvenileproceedings),the P lawyermayputtheprosecutiontoitsproofevenifthereisnononfrivolousbasisfordefense. 9  ComparisonToABAModelRules      TheProposedRuleisthesameasABAModelRule3.1exceptthattheProposedRule  makesitclearthatalawyermaynotcontinuetoassertorcontrovertanissueunlessthelawyer z continuestohaveg anonfrivolousbasisfortheclaim.TheProposedRulealsomakesclearthat c thelawyermustmakereasonableinquiryintothebasisfortheclaimsthelawyerwillmakeon L behalfofaclient. 5   ChangesMadeto1997CommitteePreliminaryDraftInResponsetoComments   W   AttherequestoftheTennesseeDistrictAttorneysGeneralConference,Comment[3]was !*  addedtoclarifytheapplicationofRule3.1toinconnectionwithrepresentationofadefendantin "! acriminalmatter. #"   AttherequestoftheAlternativeDisputeResolutionCommission,Comment[4]was ~% $ addedtoremindlawyerstogivecarefulconsiderationtoalternativedisputeresolutionpriorto g&!% filingacomplaintinacivilmatter. P'"& f  g #X XX2X D# CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges ")r$( Made 2X XXX   *\%) f    Nocommentsorchanges. +/'+ f  g    PROPOSEDRULE3.2  EXPEDITINGLITIGATION   * dv* Alawyershallmakereasonableeffortstoexpeditelitigationconsistentwiththeinterestsofthe n client. W    COMMENT  ) y +  [1]Dilatorypracticesbringtheadministrationofjusticeintodisrepute.Althoughthere  L willbeoccasionswhenalawyermayproperlyseekapostponementforpersonalreasons,suchas  5  illnessoraconflictwithanimportantfamilyengagement,itisnotproperforalawyerto    routinelyfailtoexpeditelitigationsolelyfortheconvenienceoftheadvocates.Norwillafailure   toexpeditebereasonableifdonefortheprimarypurposeoffrustratinganopposingparty's   attempttoobtainrightfulredressorrepose.Itisnotajustificationthatsimilarconductisoften   toleratedbythebenchandbar.Thequestioniswhetherareasonablelawyerwouldregardthe r  courseofactionashavingsomesubstantialpurposeotherthandelay.Realizingfinancialor [  otherbenefitfromotherwiseimproperdelayinlitigationisnotalegitimateinterestoftheclient. D   [2]Evenifalawyerisjustifiedinseekingtodelayaproceeding,thelawyermaynotdo f sobymeansotherwiseprohibitedbytheserules.See,e.g.,Rules3.1and3.4. O    _DEFINITIONAL_ԀCROSSREFERENCES !  !1 ReasonableSeeRule1.0(_i_)     COMMITTEENOTES  v 1 ComparisonToCurrentTennesseeEthicsRules I    DR7-101(A)(f  g 4f  g )providesf  Ԁinpertinentpartf  g Ԁthatalawyerdoesnotviolatethelawyer's l dutytorepresentaclientzealously"bybeingpunctualinfulfillingallprofessionalcommit  U ments."DR7-102(A)(1)providesthatalawyer"shallnot...g [_F]ile_f  g Ԁasuit,assertaposition,  > conductadefense[or]delayatrial...whenf  g thelawyerf  g Ԁknowsorwhenitisobviousthatsuch !'  actionwouldservemerelytoharassormaliciouslyinjureanother."  "! ComparisonToABAModelRules $#    ProposedRule3.2isidenticaltotheABAModelRule3.2. i&!%   ChangesMadeto1997CommitteePreliminaryDraftInResponsetoComments  ;(#'   Comment[1]wasmodifiedtoclarifythattherewillbeoccasionswhenalawyermay *^%) properlyseekapostponementforpersonalreasons,suchasillnessoraconflictwithanimportant *G&* familyengagement. +0'+ Ї#X XX2X *# CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges  Made 2X XXX   #X XX2X 8#  TheUnitedStatesAttorneys,theTennesseeDistrictAttorneysGeneralConference m ( _TDAGC_),ProfessorNeilCohen,theEastTennesseeVictimsRightsTaskForce,andthe V TennesseeVictimsCoalitionhaveaskedtheCourttomodifyRule3.2sothatthelawyersduty ?  tomakereasonableeffortstoexpeditelitigationwillnotbesubjecttothecaveatthatthose ( x effortsmustbeconsistentwiththeclientsinterests.Somodified,theRulewouldsimplyrequire  a thelawyerto makereasonableeffortstoexpeditelitigation.The_TDAGC_Ԁisconcernedthat,  J despitetheCommentthatindicatestothecontrary,theRulecouldbeinterpreted,particularlyby  3  alayperson,toallowlawyerstodelaylitigationwheneverdoingsofurthersaclientsinterests,    eveniftheclientspurposeismerelytoinconvenienceotherparties,victims,orwitnesses. On   theotherhand,theMemphisBarAssociationhasvoicedconcernthatadutytoexpedite   litigationcouldbeconstruedtorequirealawyerineveryinstancetotakeextraordinarystepsto   forcethelitigationprocesstomovefaster,andthatthiswouldplaceanimpracticalburdenon p  lawyers.TheMemphisBarAssociationrecommendsconformingRule3.2,whichisaduty Y  owedtotheCourt,tothedutyowedtotheclient toactwithreasonablediligenceand B promptnessinrepresentingaclient[inanadjudicativeproceeding]. +{   TheCommitteebelievesthatitsproposal,whichisidenticaltotheABAModelRule, M strikesasensiblebalancebetweenthesecompetingrecommendationsandconcerns.The 6 Committeebelievesthattheadministrationofjusticewillbebestservediflawyersarerequired  toexpeditelitigationwhenitisreasonabletoaccelerateitsnormalpace.Thus,contrarytothe  recommendationoftheMemphisBarAssociation,theCommitteewouldretainthedutytoact  reasonablytoexpeditelitigation.Implicitinthisdutyisanobligationnottounreasonablydelay  litigationandtoactdiligentlyandpromptly,butwhenitreasonabletodoso,theadministration s ofjusticewillbebestservedifthelawyersarerequiredtoexpeditetheprocess.Ontheother \ hand,theCommitteestronglybelievesthatalawyershouldnotberequiredtoexpeditelitigation E whendoingsowouldimpairalegitimateinterestoftheclient,suchasaneedformoretimeto .~ effectivelyprepareacase.Thus,theCommitteeisopposedtodeletingthereferencetothe g clientsinterests.ItisimportanttonotethatComment[1]makesclearthatthereferenceto the  P interestsoftheclientdoesnotlegitimatedilatorypracticeswhenevertheywouldbenefita  9 client.Thefailuretoexpeditehastobe reasonable,andtheclientinterestservedbythefailure !"  toexpeditemustbelegitimate.Thus,asclearlyindicatedintheComment,afailuretoexpedite " ! willviolatetheRuleifdonefortheprimarypurposeoffrustratinganopposingpartysattemptto #" obtainrightfulredressorrepose.ThelastsentenceoftheCommentalsoindicatesthatrealizing $# financialorotherbenefitfromanimproperdelayisnotalegitimateclientinterest.Ultimately, v% $ theCommitteethinksthatRule3.2asproposedbothprotectstheadministrationofjustice _&!% againstunduedelayandprotectslitigantsagainsttheunfairnessthatcanresultfromanundue H'"& rushtojustice.2X XXX f  g  1(#' #X XX2X ўH# 2X XXX   PROPOSEDRULE3.3  ,I  CANDORTOWARDTHETRIBUNAL   oI(a)Alawyershallnotknowingly: m   (1)makeafalsestatementoffactorlawtoatribunal;or ?    (2)failtodisclosetothetribunallegalauthorityinthecontrollingjurisdictionknown  a   tothelawyertobedirectlyadversetothepositionoftheclientandnotdisclosedby  J   opposingcounsel;or  3    (3)inanexparteproceeding,failtoinformthetribunalofallmaterialfactsknownto     thelawyerwhichwillenablethetribunaltomakeaninformeddecision,whetherornot   Ѐthefactsareadverse.f  #X XX2X I#2X XXX      (b)f  Ag f  g f  g Ԁlawyershallnotf  g offerf  g evidencef  g f  g thelawyerknowstobefalse,exceptthatalawyerwho Y  representsadefendantinacriminalproceeding,andwhohasbeendeniedpermissionto B withdrawfromthedefendantsrepresentationaftercompliancewithparagraph(f),mayallowthe +{ clienttotestifybywayofanundirectednarrativeortakesuchotheractionasisnecessaryto d honorthedefendantsconstitutionalrightsinconnectionwiththeproceeding.#X XX2X L#2X XXX  M (c)Alawyershallnotaffirmthevalidityof,orotherwiseuse,anyevidencethelawyerknowsto  befalse.  #X XX2X O#2X XXX (d)Alawyerf  g Ԁmayrefusetoofferoruseevidence,otherthanthetestimonyofaclientwhoisa  defendantinacriminalmatter,thatthelawyerreasonablybelievesisfalse,misleading, s fraudulentorillegallyobtained.#X XX2X P#2X XXX Ԁ \ #X XX2X &R#2X XXX (e)Ifalawyerknowsthatthelawyersclientintendstoperpetrateafrauduponthetribunalf  g Ԁor .~ otherwisecommitanoffenseagainsttheadministrationofjusticeinconnectionwiththe g proceeding,includingimproperconducttowardajurororamemberofthejurypool,#X XX2X R#2X XXX Ԁorcomesto  P know,priortotheconclusionoftheproceeding,thattheclienthas,duringthecourseofthe  9 lawyersrepresentation,f  g perpetratedsuchacrimeorfraud,#X XX2X T#thelawyershalladvisetheclientto !"  refrainfrom,ortodiscloseorotherwiserectify,thecrimeorfraudandshallconsultwiththe " ! clientabouttheconsequencesoftheclient'sfailuretodoso.2X XXX  #" (f)Ifalawyer,afterconsultationwiththeclientasrequiredbyparagraph(e),knowsthatthe v% $ clientstillintendstof  g perpetratethecrimeorfraud,f  g #X XX2X 'V#orrefusesorisunabletodiscloseorotherwise _&!% rectifythecrimeorfraud,2X XXX thelawyershallf  g f  g Ԁseekpermissionofthetribunaltowithdrawfromthe H'"& representationf  g oftheclientandshallinformthetribunal,withoutfurtherdisclosureof 1(#' informationprotectedbyRule1.6,thatthelawyer'srequesttowithdrawisrequiredbytheRules )j$( ofProfessionalConduct. *S%) (g)Alawyerwho,priortoconclusionoftheproceeding,comestoknow#X XX2X ѷW#2X XXX Ԁthatthelawyerhas#X XX2X Y#2X XXX  +%'+ Ї#X XX2X AZ#2X XXX offeredfalsetangibleordocumentaryevidenceshallwithdrawordisaffirmsuchevidence  withoutfurtherdisclosureofinformationprotectedbyRulef  g f  g 1.6.#X XX2X љZ#2X XXX   #X XX2X ѳ[#2X XXX (h)Alawyerwho,priortotheconclusionoftheproceeding,comestoknowthatapersonother k thantheclienthasf  g perpetratedafrauduponthetribunalf  Ԁorotherwisecommittedanoffense T againsttheadministrationofjusticeinconnectionwiththeproceeding,andinwhichthe =  lawyersclientwasnotimplicated,shallf  Ԁpromptlyreporttheimproperconducttothetribunal, & v f  g evenifsodoingrequiresthedisclosureofinformationotherwiseprotectedbyRule1.6.:  _ #X XX2X \#2X XXX (_i_)Alawyerwho,priortoconclusionoftheproceeding,comestoknowofimproperconductby  1  ortowardajurororamemberofthejurypoolshallreporttheimproperconducttothetribunal,    evenifsodoingrequiresthedisclosureofinformationotherwiseprotectedbyRule1.6.   f  g #X XX2X ^#2X XXX #X XX2X ђ`#2X XXX (j)f  g f  g f  g ԀIf,inresponsetoalawyer'srequesttowithdrawfromtherepresentationoftheclientorthe   lawyer'sreportofaperjury,fraud,oroffenseagainsttheadministrationofjusticebyaperson n  otherthanthelawyer'sclient,atribunalrequestsadditionalinformationwhichthelawyercan W  onlyprovidebydisclosinginformationprotectedbyRule1.6or1.9(c),thelawyershallcomply @ withtherequest,butonlyiffinallyorderedtodosobythetribunalafterthelawyerhasasserted )y onbehalfoftheclientallnonfrivolousclaimsthattheinformationsoughtbythetribunalis b protectedbytheattorneyclientprivilege. K f  #X XX2X `# 2X XXX g   COMMENT   d  [1]ThisRulegovernstheconductofalawyerwhoisrepresentingaclientinconnection  withtheproceedingsofatribunal,suchasacourtoranadministrativeagencyactinginan  adjudicativecapacity.Itappliesnotonlywhenthelawyerappearsbeforethetribunal,butalso r whenthelawyerparticipatesinactivitiesconductedpursuanttothetribunalsauthority,suchas [ pretrialdiscoveryinacivilmatter. D   [2]Theadvocate'staskistopresenttheclient'scasewithpersuasiveforce.Performance f ofthatdutywhilemaintainingconfidencesoftheclientisqualifiedbytheadvocate'sdutyto O refrainfromassistingaclienttoperpetrateafrauduponthetribunal.However,anadvocatedoes  8 notvouchfortheevidencesubmittedinacause;thetribunalisresponsibleforassessingits !!  probativevalue. " !    RepresentationsbyaLawyer  $# h  [3]Anadvocateisresponsibleforpleadingsandotherdocumentspreparedforlitigation, _&!% butisusuallynotrequiredtohavepersonalknowledgeofmattersassertedtherein,forlitigation H'"& documentsordinarilypresentassertionsbytheclient,orbysomeoneontheclient'sbehalf,and 1(#' notassertionsbythelawyer.CompareRule3.1.However,anassertionpurportingtobeonthe )j$( lawyer'sownknowledge,asinanaffidavitbythelawyerorinastatementinopencourt,may *S%) properlybemadeonlywhenthelawyerknowstheassertionistrueorbelievesittobetrueonthe *<&* basisofareasonablydiligentinquiry.Therearecircumstanceswherefailuretomakea +%'+ disclosureistheequivalentofanaffirmativemisrepresentation.Theobligationprescribedin  Rule1.2(d)nottocounselaclienttocommit,orassisttheclientincommittingafraud,appliesin  litigation.RegardingcompliancewithRule1.2(d),seetheCommenttothatRule.Seealsothe  CommenttoRule8.4(b). k    MisleadingLegalArgument  =  m  [4]Legalargumentbasedonaknowinglyfalserepresentationoflawconstitutes  ` dishonestytowardthetribunal.Alawyerisnotrequiredtomakeadisinterestedexpositionofthe  I law,butmustrecognizetheexistenceofpertinentlegalauthorities.Furthermore,asstatedin  2  paragraph(a)(2),anadvocatehasadutytodisclosedirectlyadverseauthorityinthecontrolling    jurisdictionwhichhasnotbeendisclosedbytheopposingparty.Theunderlyingconceptisthat   legalargumentisadiscussionseekingtodeterminethelegalpremisesproperlyapplicabletothe   case.      f  ExParteProceedings  o  #q  [5]Ordinarily,anadvocatehasthelimitedresponsibilityofpresentingonesideofthe B mattersthatatribunalshouldconsiderinreachingadecision;theconflictingpositionisexpected +{ tobepresentedbytheopposingparty.However,inanexparteproceeding,suchasan d applicationforatemporaryrestrainingorder,thereisnobalanceofpresentationbyopposing M advocates.Theobjectofanexparteproceedingisneverthelesstoyieldasubstantiallyjustresult. 6 Thejudgehasanaffirmativeresponsibilitytoaccordtheabsentpartyjustconsideration.As  providedinparagraph(a)(3),thelawyerfortherepresentedpartyhasthecorrelativedutyto  makedisclosuresofmaterialfactsknowntothelawyerandthatthelawyerreasonablybelieves  arenecessarytoaninformeddecision.#X XX2X nd#2X XXX   g )  @  @`  @  @ RefusingtoOfferorUseFalseEvidence  ] u  [6]Whenevidencethatalawyerknowstobefalseisprovidedbyapersonwhoisnotthe 0 client,thelawyermustrefusetoofferitregardlessoftheclient'swishes.Thelawyermust i similarlyrefusetoofferaclientstestimonythatthelawyerknowstobefalse,exceptthat  R paragraph(b)permitsthelawyertoallowacriminaldefendanttotestifybywayofnarrativeif  ; thelawyersrequesttowithdraw,asrequiredbyparagraph(f),isdenied.b  Paragraph(c) !$  precludesalawyerbaxfromaffirmingthevalidityof,orotherwiseusing,anyevidencethelawyer " ! knowstobefalse,includingthenarrativetestimonyofacriminaldefendant. #" #X XX2X hu#2X XXX   [7]Asprovidedinparagraph(d),alawyerhasauthoritytorefusetoofferoruse x% $ testimonyorotherproofthatthelawyerbelievesisuntrustworthy.Offeringsuchproofmay a&!% reflectadverselyonthelawyer'sabilitytodiscriminateinthequalityofevidenceandthusimpair J'"& thelawyer'seffectivenessasanadvocate.Becauseofthespecialprotectionshistorically 3(#' providedcriminaldefendants,however,thisruledoesnotpermitalawyertorefusetoofferor )l$( usethetestimonyofsuchaclientbecausethelawyerreasonablybelievesthetestimonytobe *U%) false.Unlessthelawyerknowsthetestimonywillbefalse,thelawyermusthonortheclients *>&* decisiontotestify. +''+     `    WrongdoinginAdjudicativeProceedingsbyClientsandOthers   ?}  [8]Alawyerwhoisrepresentingaclientinanadjudicativeproceedingandcomesto l knowpriortothecompletionoftheproceedingthattheclienthasperpetratedafraudor U committedperjuryoranotheroffenseagainsttheadministrationofjustice,orintendstodoso >  beforetheendoftheproceeding,isinadifficultpositioninwhichthelawyermuststrikea ' w professionallyresponsiblebalancebetweenthelawyer'sdutiesofloyaltyandconfidentiality  ` owedtotheclientandtheequallyimportantdutyofthelawyertoavoidassistingtheclientwith  I theconsummationofthefraudorperjury.Inallsuchcasesf  g ,paragraph(e)requiresthef  g lawyerf  g f  g tof  g   2  advisetheclienttodesistfromortorectifythecrimeorfraudandinformtheclientofthe    consequencesofafailuretodoso.Thehardquestionscomeinthoserarecasesinwhichthe   clientrefusestorevealthemisconductandprohibitsthelawyerfromdoingso.     [9]Paragraph(f)setsforththelawyersresponsibilitiesinsituationsinwhichthe o  lawyersclientisimplicatedinthemisconduct.f  f  g ԀInthesesituations,theRulesdonotpermitthe X  lawyertoreporttheclientsoffense.ConfidentialityunderRule1.6prevailsoverthelawyers A dutyofcandortothetribunal.Onlyiftheclientisimplicatedinmisconductbyortowarda *z jurororamemberofthejurypooldoesthelawyersdutyofcandortothetribunalprevailover c confidentiality.Seeparagraph(_i_). L   [10]#X XX2X ѡy#2X XXX Althoughthelawyermaynotrevealtheclientsmisconduct,thelawyermustnot  voluntarilycontinuetorepresenttheclient,fortodosowithoutdisclosureofthemisconduct  thatwouldassisttheclienttoconsummatetheoffense.TheRule,therefore,requiresthelawyer  toseekpermissionofthetribunaltowithdrawfromtherepresentationoftheclient.Toincrease  thelikelihoodthatthetribunalwillpermitthelawyertowithdraw,thelawyerisalsorequiredto r informthecourtthattherequestforpermissiontowithdrawisrequiredbytheRulesof [ ProfessionalConduct.Thisstatementalsoservestoadvisethetribunalthatsomethingisamiss D withoutprovidingthetribunalwithanyoftheinformationrelatedtotherepresentationthatis -} protectedbyRule1.6.TheseRules,therefore,areintendedtopreserveconfidentialitywhile f requiringthelawyertoactsoasnottoassisttheclientwiththeconsummationofthefraud.This O reflectsajudgmentthatthelegalsystemwillbebestservedbyrulesthatencourageclientsto  8 confideintheirlawyerswhof  g inturnf  g willadvisethemtorectifythefraud.Many,ifnotmost, !!  clientswillabidebytheirlawyersadvice,particularlyifthelawyerspellsouttheconsequences " ! offailingtodoso.Atthesametime,ourlegalsystemandprofessioncannotpermitlawyersto #" assistclientswhorefusetofollowtheiradviceandinsistonconsummatinganongoingfraud. $#   [11]#X XX2X ќ#2X XXX Oncethelawyerhasmadearequestforpermissiontowithdraw,thetribunalmay ^&!% grantordenytherequesttowithdrawwithoutfurtherinquiryormayseekmoreinformationfrom G'"& thelawyersaboutthereasonsforthelawyersrequest.Ifthejudgeseeksmoreinformation,the 0(#' lawyermustresistdisclosureofinformationprotectedbyRule1.6,butonlytotheextentthatthe )i$( lawyermaydosoincompliancewithRule3.1.Ifthelawyercannotmakeanonfrivolous *R%) argumentthattheinformationsoughtbythetribunalisprotectedbytheattorneyclientprivilege, *;&* thelawyermustrespondtruthfullytotheinquiry.If,however,thereisanonfrivolousargument +$'+ thattheinformationsoughtisprivileged,paragraph(h)requiresthelawyertoinvokethe  privilege.Whethertoseekaninterlocutoryappealfromanadversedecisionwithrespecttothe  claimofprivilegeisgovernedbyRule1.2and3.1.    [12]#X XX2X #2X XXX Ifalawyerisrequiredtoseekpermissionfromatribunaltowithdrawfromthe T representationofaclientineitheracivilorcriminalproceedingbecausetheclienthasrefusedto =  rectifyaperjuryorfraud,itisultimatelytheresponsibilityofthetribunaltodeterminewhether & v thelawyerwillbepermittedtowithdrawfromtherepresentation.Inacriminalproceeding,  _ however,adecisiontopermitthelawyer'swithdrawalmayimplicatetheconstitutionalrightsof  H theaccusedandmayevenhavetheeffectofprecludingfurtherprosecutionoftheclient.  1  Notwithstandingthispossibility,thelawyermustseekpermissiontowithdraw,leavingittothe    prosecutortoobjecttotherequestandtothetribunaltoultimatelydeterminewhetherwithdrawal   ispermitted.Ifpermissiontowithdrawisnotgranted,thelawyermustcontinuetorepresentthe   clientbutcannotassisttheclientinconsummatingthefraudorperjurybydirectlyorindirectly   usingtheperjuredtestimonyorfalseevidenceduringthecurrentoranysubsequentstageofthe n  proceeding.Adefenseattorneywhocomplieswiththeserulesisactingprofessionallywithout W  regardtotheeffectofthelawyer'scomplianceontheoutcomeoftheproceeding. @    FalseDocumentaryorTangibleEvidence b    [13]Ifalawyercomestoknowthattangibleitemsordocumentsthatthelawyerhas 4 previouslyofferedintoevidencehavebeenalteredorfalsified,paragraph(g)requiresthatthe  lawyerwithdrawor_disaffirm_Ԁtheevidencebutdoesnototherwisepermitdisclosureof  informationprotectedbyRule1.6.Because_disaffirmance_,likewithdrawal,canbe  accomplishedwithoutdisclosureofinformationprotectedbyRule1.6,itisrequiredwhen  necessaryforthelawyertoavoidassistingafraudonthetribunal. q #X XX2X ы#2X XXX f  g   CrimesorFraudsbyPersonsOtherthantheClient  C Ӏ  [14]#X XX2X ܚ#2X XXX Paragraph(h)f  g appliesifthelawyercomestoknowthatapersonotherthantheclient f hasengagedinmisconductinconnectionwiththeproceeding.f  g Uponlearningpriortothe O completionoftheproceedingthatsuchmisconducthasoccurredf  g ,thelawyerisrequiredby  8 paragraph(e)topromptlyrevealtheoffensetothetribunal.Theclientsinterestinprotectingthe !!  wrongdoerisnotsufficientlyimportantastooverridethelawyersdutyofcandortothecourt " ! andtotakeaffirmativestepstopreventtheadministrationofjusticefrombeingtaintedby #" perjury,fraudorotherimproperconduct. $#   MisconductByofTowardJurorsorMembersofJuryPool  ^&!% #X XX2X ѵ#2X XXX   [15]Becausejurytamperingunderminestheinstitutionalmechanismouradversary 3(#' systemofjusticeusestodeterminethetruthorfalsityoftestimonyorevidence,paragraph(_i_) )l$( requiresalawyerwholearnspriortothecompletionoftheproceedingthattherehasbeen *U%) misconductbyordirectedtowardajurororprospectivejurormustrevealthemisconductandthe *>&* identityoftheperpetratortothetribunal,evenifsodoingrequiresdisclosureofinformation +''+ protectedbyRule1.6.Paragraph(_i_)doesnotf  Ԁg f  g requiref  g Ԁthatthelawyerseekpermissionto  withdrawfromthefurtherrepresentationoftheclientintheproceeding,butincasesinwhichthe  clientisimplicatedinthejurytampering,thelawyerscontinuedrepresentationoftheclientmay  violateRule1.7.Rule1.16(a)(1)wouldthenrequirethelawyertoseekpermissiontowithdraw k fromthecase. T    CrimeorFraudDiscoveredAfterConclusionofProceeding  & v y    [16]#X XX2X і#2X XXX Incasesinwhichthelawyerlearnsoftheclientsmisconductafterthetermination  K oftheproceedinginwhichthemisconductoccurred,thelawyerisprohibitedfromreportingthe  4  clientsmisconducttothetribunal.Eventhoughthelawyermayhaveinnocentlyassistedthe    clienttoperpetratetheoffense,thelawyershouldtreatthisinformationasthelawyerwouldtreat   informationwithrespecttoanypastcrimeaclientmighthavecommitted.Theclientsoffense   willbedeemedcompletedasoftheconclusionoftheproceeding.Anoffensewhichoccursatan   earlierstageintheproceedingwillbedeemedanongoingoffenseuntilthefinalstageofthe q  proceedingiscompleted.AproceedinghasconcludedwithinthemeaningofthisRulewhena Z  finaljudgmentintheproceedinghasbeenaffirmedonappealorthetimeforanappealhas C passed.#X XX2X 3#2X XXX   ,|   ConstitutionalRequirements  O   [17]#X XX2X х#2X XXX ԀTheseRulesapplytodefensecounselincriminalcases,aswellasinother " instances.However,thedefinitionofthelawyer'sethicaldutyinsuchasituationmaybe   qualifiedbyconstitutionalprovisionsfordueprocessandtherighttocounselincriminalcases.  TheobligationoftheadvocateundertheseRulesissubordinatetoanysuchconstitutional  requirement. v f  g   _DEFINITIONAL_ԀCROSSREFERENCES  H Q Consultand ConsultationSeeRule1.0(c) k  Fraudand FraudulentSeeRule1.0(e)  T  Knowingly, Knownand KnowsSeeRule1.0(f)  =  MaterialSeeRule1.0(g) !&   ReasonablyBelievesSeeRule1.0(j) "!  TribunalSeeRule1.0(m) #" #X XX2X A#2X XXX    COMMITTEENOTES z% $ ComparisonToCurrentTennesseeEthicsRules N'"& f    f  g Paragraph(a)(1):Paragraph(a)(1)isg similarf  g ԀtoDR7-102(f  g af  g )(g 5f  g ). ")r$(   Paragraph(a)(2):Paragraphg Ԁf  g (g a)(2)issubstantiallythesameasDR7-106(B)(1). *D&*  +-'+   Paragraph(a)(3):ThereisnocounterparttothisruleintheDisciplinaryRules.    Paragraph(b):DR7-102(A)(4)providesthatalawyershallnot"f  g [_k]nowingly_f  g Ԁusef    perjuredtestimonyorfalseevidence.ThereisnocounterpartintheDisciplinaryRulestothe k secondhalfofthesentence. T   Paragraph(c):DR7-102(A)(4)providesthatalawyershallnot"f  g [_k]nowingly_f  g Ԁusef   & v perjuredtestimonyorfalseevidence.#X XX2X т#2X XXX   _   Paragraph(d):ThereisnocounterparttoParagraph(d)intheDisciplinaryRules.  1    Paragraphs(e)and(f):ThecomparableDisciplinaryRuleisDR7102(B)(1)which   provides:   Alawyerwhoreceivesinformationclearlyestablishingthat...hisclienthas,inthe n  courseoftherepresentation,perpetratedafrauduponapersonortribunal,shallpromptly W  calluponhisclienttorectifythesame,andiftheclientrefusesorisunabletodoso,he @ shallrevealthefraudtotheaffectedpersonortribunal,exceptwhentheinformationis )y protectedasaprivilegedcommunication b   Paragraph(g):ThereisnocounterparttoParagraph(g)intheDisciplinaryRules.#X XX2X ѿ#2X XXX  4   Paragraph(h):DR7102(B)(2)providesthat f  g [f  g ag ]f  g Ԁlawyerwhoreceivesinformation  clearlyestablishingthat...apersonotherthanhisclienthasperpetratedafrauduponatribunal  shallpromptlyrevealthefraudtothetribunal.    Paragraph(_i_):#X XX2X ќ#2X XXX ԀDR7108(G)providesthat alawyershallrevealpromptlytothecourt Z improperconductbyaf  _venireperson_f  g Ԁorajuror,orbyanothertowardaf  _venireperson_sf  g Ԁorag g jurorsf  g  C family,ofwhichthelawyerhasknowledge. ,|   Paragraph  (j):#X XX2X Ѱ#2X XXX ԀThereisnocounterparttoparagraph(g)intheDisciplinaryRules. N Ѐ  NotethatthereisnocounterpartintheProposedRuletoDR7106(B)(2),whichprovides !   that,unlesstheinformationisprivilegedorirrelevant,alawyershalldisclosetothetribunalthe " ! identitiesoftheclientsheorsherepresentsandofthepersonswhoemployedthelawyer. #"  ComparisonToABAModelRules  t% $ f     #X XX2X #2X XXX f  g Paragraph(a)(1):ABAModelRule3.3(a)(1)onlyprohibitsfalsestatementsof F'"&  materialfactorlaw. /(#'    Paragraph(a)(2):Paragraph(a)(2)isidenticaltoABAModelRule3.3(a)(3). *Q%)   Paragraph(a)(3):Paragraph(a)(3)isidenticaltoABAModelRule3.3(d). +#'+ Ї  Paragraph(b):Theprohibitionagainstofferingevidenceknowntobefalseis  substantiallythesameasthefirstsentenceofABAModelRule3.3(a)(4).Thereisnostated  exceptionintheModelRulefortheforthenarrativetestimonyofaclientwhoisadefendantina  criminalmatter. k   Paragraph(c):Thereisnocounterparttoparagraph(c)intheABAModelRules. =      Paragraph(d):ParagraphtracksABAModelRule3.3(c),exceptthattheProposedRule  _ broadensthelawyersdiscretiontorefusetoofferevidencetoincludenotonlyfalseevidence,  H butalsomisleading,fraudulentorillegallyobtainedevidence.Ontheotherhand,theRuledoes  1  notpermitthelawyertorefusetoofferthetestimonyofaclientwhoisadefendantinacriminal    matterwhenthelawyeronlyhasreasontobelieve,asdistinctfromknowledge,thatthe   testimonywillbefalse,misleading,fraudulentorillegallyobtained.Paragraph(d)alsogrants   thelawyerdiscretiontorefusetouseevidencethelawyerreasonablybelievestobefalse.   Ѐ#X XX2X <#2X XXX  n    Paragraphs(e)and(f):TheABAModelRulecounterpartstoParagraphs(e)and(f)#X XX2X :#2X XXX Ԁare W  foundinRules3.3(a)(2)and(4)and3.3(b).Theserulesprovidethatalawyermustdiscloseto @ thecourtinformationthenondisclosureofwhichwouldassisttheclienttoperpetrateafraudon )y thecourtandthatthelawyermustdosoeveniftheinformationisprotectedbyRule1.6.Rule b 3.3(a)(4)dealsparticularlywiththecorrectionofevidencethelawyerhasofferedandwhichthe K lawyernowknowstobefalse.TheProposedRulerequiresa noisyattempttowithdrawfrom 4 therepresentationratherthandisclosureofconfidentialinformationtothetribunal.    Paragraph(g):#X XX2X #2X XXX ԀModelRule3.3(a)(4)and(b)morebroadlyrequiresthelawyertotake  reasonableremedialmeasures,including,ifnecessary,disclosuretothetribunal,ofinformation  relatingtotherepresentation. q Ѐ  Paragraph(h)#X XX2X #2X XXX :Thereisnocounterparttoparagraph(h)#X XX2X #2X XXX intheABAModelRules. C     Paragraph(_i_):#X XX2X #2X XXX ԀThereisnocounterparttoparagraph(_i_)#X XX2X Ѣ#2X XXX ԀintheABAModelRules. e   Paragraph(j)#X XX2X -#2X XXX :Thereisnocounterparttoparagraph(j)#X XX2X ѷ#2X XXX ԀintheABAModelRules.  7  ChangesMadeto1997CommitteePreliminaryDraftInResponsetoComments " !    ThefollowingchangeshavebeenmadetothePreliminaryDraft: $#   Paragraphs(a),(b)and(j):Withoutchangeinsubstance,Paragraph(a)(3)hasbeenadded ^&!% toparagraph(b)andparagraph(J)hasbeenrelocatedtoparagraph(a)(3). G'"&   Paragraph(a)(1):Theprohibitionagainstalawyermakingfalsestatementsoflaworfact )i$( isnolongerlimitedtostatementsof materialfactorlaw.TheCommitteecanseenoreason *R%) foralawyertoeverknowinglylietoacourt. *;&*   +$'+   Paragraph(b): Theoriginalproposal,whichthatallowedalawyertorefusetoofferany  evidencethatthelawyerreasonablybelievestobefalseormisleading,hasbeenmodifiedto  eliminatethisdiscretionwhentheevi