WPC - ȧ}mCZ6Gj8!P/ԒBeQ~Au}IC{T@32QQw9K ^4Я[.fMs t @uQA<'[.ʇM!1w)E1& jX{D0qժl*ڜSGnxO (^gM1) mº--ÆebF(wosN00@вq,p:lpB zwE~JT9Ժ3M!/_|HCPq^zZ\rNFx$ xo^'\/itTqȃ2ujuo0.OxqTXU< ?\SHh7"i/L׊:ncF#8@\& Jl N!T\hf%y [2qp1\e=QnQ&\# UKN % 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          Y~+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     @  @ ExhibitC 2X2X%  f  g REVISEDf   g FINALREPORT  ofthe   TennesseeBarAssociation   CommitteefortheStudyof c  StandardsofProfessionalConduct   #2X%X2#2X2X%Ԁ Revised ԀCommitteeDraftof  ] ProposedTennesseeRulesofProfessionalConduct  #2X%X2{#2X2X%f  September30,2000 g f  g December3,2001 #2X%X2_#  Z" !] !8%XXdXXd8 !     G8%XXdXXd8B.` hp x (#XB  3c5      NOTE:ThisdraftoftheProposedTennesseeRulesofProfessionalConductincludes, k aftereachProposedRule,Comment,and_Definitional_ԀCross-References,asectionentitled T CommitteeNotes.Thissection,preparedonbehalfoftheCommittee,includesabrief =  comparisonoftheProposedRuleԀ andComment toexistingTennesseeethicsrules,abrief & v comparisonoftheProposedRule Ԁ andComment tothepertinentprovisionsoftheABAModel  _ RulesofProfessionalConduct ;f  and g abriefdescriptionofanychangesmadetotheProposedRule  H andCommentf  _since g f  g after_f   g ԀtheCommitteesPreliminaryDraftf  , g f  g Ԁwasf   g ԀissuedbytheCommitteefor  1  discussionpurposesinNovember1997f  g ,yetbeforethePetitionwasfiledinOctober2000;anda    briefdescriptionofcommentsreceivedbytheTennesseeSupremeCourtortheCommitteeafter   thefilingoftheTBAPetitioninOctober2000,aswellasanyresponseorchangestothe   ProposedRulemadebytheCommitteeinresponsetosuchcommentsf   g .     0H G 08%XXdXXd8  08%XXdXXd8     q.٦4<"TABLEOFCONTENTS    !!G(#Page     Vm  Vm0     PREAMBLE#""J(#. (#(##1Vm݌ T Ќ  Vm  Vm80     SCOPE#""J(#.(#(##2Vm8T݌ & 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#`"`"I(#.(#(##10f   g Vm[w݌ n  Ќ  Vm  Vm=0     f  g #X%XX2X%#f  g 2X%XXX%  PROPOSEDRULE1.2 h  @  ` SCOPEOFTHEREPRESENTATIONANDTHEALLOCATIONOF )y  ` AUTHORITYBETWEENTHELAWYERANDCLIENT#`"`"I(#.;(#(##1f  5f  g Vm=Y݌ b Ќ  Vm  VmR0       PROPOSEDRULE1.3 4  ` DILIGENCE#`"`"I(#. (#(##23VmRn݌  Ќ  Vm  VmK0       PROPOSEDRULE1.4   ` COMMUNICATION#`"`"I(#...!(#(##25VmKg݌  Ќ  Vm  VmI0       PROPOSEDRULE1.5 Z  ` FEES#`"`"I(#.2 2 (#(##28VmIe݌ C Ќ  Vm  Vm>0       PROPOSEDRULE1.6 e  ` CONFIDENTIALITY#`"`"I(#.ee#(#(##35Vm>Z݌ N Ќ  Vm  Vm>0       PROPOSEDRULE1.7 !    ` CONFLICTOFINTEREST:GENERALRULE#`"`"I(#.7(#(##45Vm>Z݌ " ! Ќ  Vm  VmR0       PROPOSEDRULE1.8 $#  ` CONFLICTOFINTEREST:PROHIBITEDTRANSACTIONS#`"`"I(#.B(#(##54VmRn݌ t% $ Ќ  Vm  Vmq0       PROPOSEDRULE1.9 F'"&  ` CONFLICTOFINTEREST:FORMERCLIENT#`"`"I(#.  8(#(##61Vmq݌ /(#' Ќ  Vm  Vm0     f    PROPOSEDRULE1.10 *Q%)  ` IMPUTEDDISQUALIFICATION:GENERALRULE#`"`"I(#.:(#(##66#X%XX2X%#2X%XXX% Vm݌ *:&* Ќ  Vm  Vm0     Vm ݌ (#(# Ќ    _i_ -(-   Vm  Vm 0     f  g   PROPOSEDRULE1.11   ` SUCCESSIVEGOVERNMENTANDPRIVATEEMPLOYMENT#`"`"I(#.@(#(##73Vm ݌  Ќ  Vm  Vm "0       PROPOSEDRULE1.12 T  ` FORMERJUDGEORARBITRATOR#`"`"I(#..(#(##77Vm "("݌ =  Ќ  Vm  Vm#0       PROPOSEDRULE1.13  _  ` ORGANIZATIONALCLIENTS#`"`"I(#.*(#(##79Vm#4#݌  H Ќ  Vm  Vm $0       PROPOSEDRULE1.14     ` CLIENTUNDERADISABILITY#`"`"I(#.\\-(#(##85Vm $<$݌   Ќ  Vm  Vm+%0     0(#(#PROPOSEDRULE1.15   0` (#(#SAFEKEEPINGPROPERTY#`"`"I(#.(` (#` (##89Vm+%G%݌ n  Ќ  Vm  VmA&0     0(#(#PROPOSEDRULE1.16 @ 0` (#(#DECLININGANDTERMINATINGREPRESENTATION#`"`"I(#.OO=` (#` (##94VmA&]&݌ )y Ќ  Vm  Vml'0       PROPOSEDRULE1.17 K  ` SALEOFALAWPRACTICE#!!H(#.ff+(#(##100Vml''݌ 4 Ќ  Vm  Vmu(0     CHAPTER2.THELAWYERASCOUNSELOR, INTERMEDIATOR (Ԁ INTERMEDIARY $),  ANDDISPUTERESOLUTIONNEUTRAL#!!H(#.  -(#(##104Vmu((݌  Ќ  Vm  Vm)0       PROPOSEDRULE2.1 q  ` ADVISOR#!!H(#. (#(##104Vm) *݌ Z Ќ  Vm  Vm*0       PROPOSEDRULE2.2 ,|  ` LAWYERSERVINGASINTERMEDIARYBETWEENCLIENTS#!!H(#.C(#(##106Vm*+݌ e Ќ  Vm  Vm,0       PROPOSEDRULE2.3  7  ` EVALUATIONFORUSEBYTHIRDPERSONS#!!H(#.KK7(#(##113Vm,$,݌ !   Ќ  Vm  Vm-0       PROPOSEDRULE2.4 #"  ` LAWYERASDISPUTERESOLUTIONNEUTRAL#!!H(#.jj9(#(##116Vm-9-݌ $# Ќ  f  CHAPTER3.ADVOCATE!!H(#. 124 ]&!%    PROPOSEDRULE3.1 /(#'    ` MERITORIOUSCLAIMSANDCONTENTIONS!!H(#.cc6124#X%XX2X%#2X%XXX%Ԉ )h$(   ii -(- 4< 4 4  /f  g   PROPOSEDRULE3.2    EXPEDITINGLITIGATION!!H(#.TT$126  Vm  Vm00       PROPOSEDRULE3.3 k  ` CANDORTOWARDTHETRIBUNAL#!!H(#..(#(##128Vm00݌ T Ќ  Vm  Vm10       PROPOSEDRULE3.4 & v  ` FAIRNESSTOOPPOSINGPARTYANDCOUNSEL#!!H(#.:(#(##143Vm11݌  _ Ќ  Vm  Vm20       PROPOSEDRULE3.5  1   ` IMPARTIALITYANDDECORUMOFTHETRIBUNAL#!!H(#.<(#(##147Vm22݌    Ќ  Vm  Vm30       PROPOSEDRULE3.6    ` TRIALPUBLICITY#!!H(#.#(#(##151Vm34݌   Ќ  Vm  Vm40       PROPOSEDRULE3.7 W   ` LAWYERASWITNESS#!!H(#.ww%(#(##156Vm45݌ @ Ќ  Vm  Vm50       PROPOSEDRULE3.8 b  ` SPECIALRESPONSIBILITIESOFAPROSECUTOR#!!H(#.<(#(##158Vm56݌ K Ќ  Vm  Vm70       PROPOSEDRULE3.9   ` ADVOCATEINNONADJUDICATIVEPROCEEDINGS#!!H(#.<(#(##163Vm7/7݌  Ќ  Vm  Vm-80     CHAPTER4.TRANSACTIONSWITHPERSONSOTHERTHANCLIENTS#!!H(#.B(#(##165Vm-8I8݌  Ќ  Vm  Vm90       PROPOSEDRULE4.1 Z  ` TRUTHFULNESSANDCANDORINSTATEMENTSTOOTHERS#!!H(#.wwC(#(##165Vm939݌ C Ќ  Vm  Vm8:0       PROPOSEDRULE4.2 e  ` COMMUNICATIONWITHPERSONREPRESENTEDBYCOUNSEL#!!H(#.D D D(#(##170Vm8:T:݌ N Ќ  Vm  VmZ;0       PROPOSEDRULE4.3 !    ` DEALINGWITHUNREPRESENTEDPERSON#!!H(#.5(#(##174VmZ;v;݌ " ! Ќ    PROPOSEDRULE4.4 $#    ` RESPECTFORRIGHTSOFTHIRDPERSONS!!H(#.7176 t% $ Vm  Vm=0     CHAPTER5.LAWFIRMS,LEGALDEPARTMENTS,ANDLEGAL F'"& SERVICEORGANIZATIONS#!!H(#.$(#(##179Vm=-=݌ /(#' Ќ    iii #X%XX2X%F/#2X%XXX% -(- 5 5 c 5  *>Vm  Vm>0       PROPOSEDRULE5.1   ` RESPONSIBILITIESOFAPARTNER,MANAGINGLAWYEROR  @   ЀSUPERVISORYLAWYER#!!H(#.::-(#(##179#X%XX2X%_>#Vm>?݌ k Ќ  Vm  Vm@0       PROPOSEDRULE5.2 =   ` RESPONSIBILITIESOFA  SUBORDINATELAWYER#!!H(#.:(#(##183Vm@@݌ & v Ќ  Vm  VmA0       PROPOSEDRULE5.3  H  ` RESPONSIBILITIESREGARDING_NONLAWYER_ԀASSISTANTS#!!H(#.C(#(##185VmAA݌  1  Ќ  Vm  Vm C0       PROPOSEDRULE5.4    ` PROFESSIONALINDEPENDENCEOFALAWYER#!!H(#.9(#(##187Vm C%C݌   Ќ  Vm  Vm D0       PROPOSEDRULE5.5 n   ` UNAUTHORIZEDPRACTICEOFLAW#!!H(#.0(#(##190Vm D  ethicalconductandintegrity,anddedicationtojusticeandthepublicgood. ' w a`  *!f  g [2]f   g Alawyerisarepresentativeofclients,anofficerofthelegalsystemandapublic  I citizenhavingspecialresponsibilityforthequalityofjustice.  2  -dch  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  includeauthorityconcerninglegalmattersthat #" ordinarilyreposesintheclient g f  g differfromthoseoflawyersf   g Ԁinprivateclient-lawyerrelationships. $# Forexample,f  alawyerforagovernmentagencymay g f  g Ԁincertaincircumstances,theAttorney t% $ GeneralofTennesseef   g Ԁhaf  ve g f  g sf   g Ԁauthorityonbehalfofthegovernmenttodecideuponsettlementor ]&!% whethertoappealfromanadversejudgment.f  Suchauthorityinvariousrespectsisgenerally F'"& vestedintheattorneygeneralandthestate'sattorneyinstategovernment,andtheirfederal /(#' counterparts,andthe g f  g Ԁ_The_f   g Ԁsamemaybetrueoff  Ԁothergovernmentlawofficers.Also, g Ԁlawyers )h$(  employedbythefederalgovernment.Also,certaingovernmentlawyers  underthesupervisionof *Q%) theseofficersmaybeauthorizedtorepresentseveralgovernmentagenciesf  g ,officersoremployeesf   g  *:&* inf  Ԁintragovernmental g Ԁlegalcontroversiesincircumstanceswhereaprivatelawyercouldnot +#'+ representmultipleprivateclients.f  g ԀGovernmentlawyersinTennesseearealsosubjecttotheOpen  MeetingsActasinterpretedbytheTennesseecourts.f   g ԀTheyalsomayhaveauthoritytorepresent  the"publicinterest"incircumstanceswhereaprivatelawyerwouldnotbeauthorizedtodoso.  TheseRules donot ݝԀ arenotintendedto Ԁabrogate anysuchauthority UԀ thepowersand k responsibilitiesofgovernmentlawyersunderfederallaworundertheconstitution,statutes,or T commonlawofTennessee . =    f  g [5]f   g FailuretocomplywithanobligationorprohibitionimposedbyaRuleisabasisfor  _ invokingthedisciplinaryprocess.TheRulespresupposethatdisciplinaryassessmentofa  H lawyer'sconductwillbemadeonthebasisofthefactsandcircumstancesastheyexistedatthe  1  timeoftheconductinquestionandinrecognitionofthefactthatalawyeroftenhastoactupon    uncertainorincompleteevidenceofthesituation.Moreover,theRulespresupposethatwhether   ornotdisciplineshouldbeimposedforaviolation,andtheseverityofasanction,dependonall   thecircumstances,suchasthewillfulnessandseriousnessoftheviolation,extenuatingfactors   andwhethertherehavebeenpreviousviolations. n    f  g [6]f   g ViolationofaRuleshouldnotgiverisetoacauseofactionnorshoulditcreateany @ presumptionthatalegaldutyhasbeenbreached.TheRulesaredesignedtoprovideguidanceto )y lawyersandtoprovideastructureforregulatingconductthroughdisciplinaryagencies.Theyare b notdesignedtobeabasisforcivilliability.Furthermore,thepurposeoftheRulescanbe K subvertedwhentheyareinvokedbyopposingpartiesasproceduralweapons.Thefactthata 4 Ruleisajustbasisforalawyer'sself-assessment,orforsanctioningalawyerunderthe  administrationofadisciplinaryauthority,doesnotimplythatanantagonistinacollateral  proceedingortransactionhasstandingtoseekenforcementoftheRule.Accordingly,nothingin  theRulesshouldbedeemedtoaugmentanysubstantivelegaldutyoflawyersorthe  extra-disciplinaryconsequencesofviolatingsuchaduty. q   f  g [7]f   g Moreover,theseRulesarenotintendedtogovernoraffectjudicialapplicationof C eithertheattorney-clientorworkproductprivilege.Thoseprivilegesweredevelopedtopromote ,| compliancewithlawandfairnessinlitigation.Inrelianceontheattorney-clientprivilege,clients e areentitledtoexpectthatcommunicationswithinthescopeoftheprivilegewillbeprotected N againstcompelleddisclosure.Theattorney-clientprivilegeisthatoftheclientandnotofthe  7 lawyer.ThefactthatinexceptionalsituationsthelawyerundertheRuleshasalimiteddiscretion !   todiscloseaclientconfidencedoesnotvitiatethepropositionthat,asageneralmatter,theclient " ! hasareasonableexpectationthatinformationrelatingtotheclientwillnotbevoluntarily #" disclosedandthatdisclosureofsuchinformationmaybejudiciallycompelledonlyin $# accordancewithrecognizedexceptionstotheattorney-clientandworkproductprivileges. t% $   f  g [8]f   g Thelawyer'sexerciseofdiscretionnottodiscloseinformationwhenpermittedtodo F'"& sobyRule1.6shouldnotbesubjecttoreexamination.Permittingsuchreexaminationwouldbe /(#' incompatiblewiththegeneralpolicyofpromotingcompliancewithlawthroughassurancesthat )h$( communicationswillbeprotectedagainstdisclosure. *Q%)     [9] Ԁf  g TheCommentaccompanyingeachRuleexplainsandillustratesthemeaningand#X%XX2X%8_#2X%XXX% +#'+ purposeoftheRule.ThePreambleandthisnoteonScopeprovidegeneralorientation.The  Commentsareintendedeitherasguidestointerpretationorassuggestionsofgoodpractice,but  thetextofeachRuleisauthoritative.    ef  CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges T Made #X%XX2X%#2X%XXX% >  #X%XX2X%ͱ#   1.EachparagraphinthePreambleandScopehasbeennumbered.Thisparallelsthe   enumerationintheCommentsandwillfacilitatecitation.     2.Scope,Paragraph[4],hasbeenmodifiedinresponsetotheCommentfiledwiththe X   CourtbytheAttorneyGeneralofTennessee.TheCommitteebelievesthatthischangeis A  responsivetotheAttorneyGeneralsconcern,whilealsoacknowledgingthatlawyersforother *z  governmentalentitiesmayalsohavespecialpowersandresponsibilities.Ratherthancreate c  uniqueandnonuniformTennesseeexceptionsineachofthevariousrulesaboutwhichthe L  AttorneyGeneralvoicedconcern,theCommitteebelievesthatthisrevisionaffordsTennessee 5  courtstheflexibilitytorecognizethedistinctivelegalresponsibilitiesandprerogativesofthe  AttorneyGeneralandothergovernmentlawyers. 2X%XXX%f  g   $    CHAPTER1  CLIENTLAWYERRELATIONSHIP  ŶPROPOSEDRULE1.0 n ;DEFINITIONS  X  r(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,orf  professionallimited $# liabilitypartnership,or g asolepractitionerwhoemploysotherlawyersor_nonlawyers_Ԁin y% $ connectionwithhisorherpractice. b&!% (_i_)"Reasonable"or"Reasonably"whenusedinrelationtoconductbyalawyerdenotesthe 4(#' conductofareasonablyprudentandcompetentlawyer. )m$(   (j)"Reasonablebelief'or"Reasonablybelieves"whenusedinreferencetoalawyerdenotes#X%XX2X%J#2X%XXX% *?&*  +('+ thatthelawyerbelievesthematterinquestionandthatthecircumstancesaresuchthatthebelief  isreasonable.    (k)"Reasonablyshouldknow"whenusedinreferencetoalawyerdenotesthatalawyerof k reasonableprudenceandcompetencewouldascertainthematterinquestion. T   (l)"Substantial"denotessomethingthatisnotonlymaterialbutalsoofclearandweighty & v importance.  _ Ѐ  H (m)"Tribunal"denotesacourtorotheradjudicativebody.Ǹ   1    COMMENT  >  S21X2X%  #2X%X21# [1] ԀIncircumstancesinwhichtheserulesrequireeitherconsentinwritingorwritten   consent,therequirementmaybesatisfiedbyanelectronictransmissionf  if g f  g thatisreasonably   calculatedtoreachtheclient,providedthatf   g Ԁthetransmissioncanbereducedtowritingor o  permanentlyretainedinelectronicformat. X     COMMITTEENOTES  *z * ComparisonToCurrentTennesseeEthicsRules  M   TherearenocounterpartstothesedefinitionsintheDisciplinaryRulesexceptasfollows:   0  (d)FirmorLawFirm: AlawfirmisdefinedintheDisciplinaryRulesasincluding a  professionallegalcorporationandaprofessionallegallimitedliabilitylegalcompany.f     Paragraph(d)broadensthisdefinitionbyreferringmoregenerallytoaprivatefirmand w broadeningonedefinitiontoincludelegaldepartmentsandlegalservicesorganizations ` aswellasthetraditionalprivatelawfirm.I(#(#    (m)Tribunal:ThisdefinitionisthesameasDisciplinaryRuleDefinition(8). l   ComparisonToABAModelRules   >    ThedefinitionsareidenticaltotheModelRuledefinitionsexceptasfollows: "" f    (b)ConsentsinWriting:ThereisnocounterpartintheModelRules. $$ #X%XX2X%x#2X%XXX%f  g 0  (e)FraudorFraudulent:TheModelRuledefinesthesetermsasdenoting conductthat e&!& hasapurposetodeceiveandnotmerelynegligentmisrepresentationorfailureto_apprisf  g f  g f  g e_ N'"' anotherofrelevantinformation. Theproposeddefinitionincludesspecificreferenceto 7(#( intentionallyfalseandmisleadingstatementsandanintentionalomissionfroma  )p$) statementoffactofsuchadditionalinformationaswouldbenecessarytomakethe  *Y%* statementsmadenotmateriallymisleading. *B&+(#(# Ѐ  ++',  0  (g)Material:Thereisnodefinitionof materialintheModelRules. (#(# 0  (h)Partner:TheModelRuledefinitionofa partnerislimitedto amemberofa  partnershipanda shareholderinalawfirmorganizedasaprofessionalcorporation. k TheCommitteehasbroadenedthisdefinitionwhichisusedinRules5.1through5.4 T toincludemembersin_PLLCs_Ԁandasolepractitionerwhoemploysotherlawyersor =   _nonlawyers_#X%XX2X%## 2X%XXX%Ԁinconnectionwithhisorherpractice.& v(#(#  0  (l)Substantial:Thedefinitionhasbeenslightlymodifiedtohighlighttherelationship  H betweenmateriality(somethingareasonablelawyerwouldconsiderimportant)and  1  substantiality(somethingthatisofclearandweightyimportance).  (#(#  ChangesMadeto1997CommitteePreliminaryDraftInResponsetoComments      Thedefinitionsweretransferredfroma TerminologysectionattheendofthePreamble o  toanewRule1.0. X    Thefollowingdefinitionsweredeletedasunnecessary: *z   Agencydenotesagovernmentalorganizationorentityotherthanatribunal. L   Employeedenotesapersonwhoisactingonbehalfofalawyerorlawfirmandwho    hasagreedtobesubjecttoalawyersrighttocontrolwithrespecttoactionstakenon    behalfofthelawyerorlawfirm.    "Organizationorotherlegalentity"denotestrusts,estates,partnerships,limited  r   partnerships,corporations,limitedliabilitycompanies,limitedliabilitypartnerships,and [   otherrelationshipsregardedinlawashavingalegalexistenceseparateanddistinctfrom D   thatofthepersonswhoarepartiestotherelationship. -}   "Person"denotesanindividual,anorganizationorotherlegalentity,oranagency. O   Paragraph(b)defining ConsentsinWritingwasadded. !!   #X%XX2X%%#CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges #" Made2X%XXX% $# #X%XX2X%.#  1.AredundantreferencetolimitedliabilitypartnershipsinParagraph(h)sdefinitionof a&!%  partnerwasdeleted.X%XXX% J'"&   2.InresponsetoasuggestionfrommembersoftheTBAsTax,Probate,andTrustLaw )l$( Section,Paragraph(b)andComment[1]weremodifiedtoclarifythatawrittenconfirmationof *U%) anoralconsentmustbetransmittedtotheclientby meansreasonablycalculatedtoreachthe *>&* client.Thisincreasesthelikelihoodthattheclientwillreceivetheconfirmationandprotects +''+ thelawyerwherethelawyerhastransmittedtheconfirmationbyreasonablemeans,buttheclient  doesnotreceiveit.#X%XXX%&#2X%XXX%   f  g  k    PROPOSEDRULE1.1  COMPETENCE   LAlawyershallprovidecompetentrepresentationtoaclient.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]f  Inanemergency g f  g Inasituationinwhichaclientisthreatenedwithimminentand l irreparableharm,f   g Ԁalawyermaygiveadviceorassistanceinamatterinwhichthelawyerdoes  U nothavetheskillordinarilyrequiredwherereferraltoorconsultationorassociationwithanother  > lawyerwouldbeimpractical.Eveninf  anemergency g f  g suchasituationf   g ,however,assistanceshould !'  belimitedtothatreasonablynecessaryinthecircumstances,forillconsideredactionf  Ԁunder "! emergencyconditions g Ԁcanjeopardizetheclient'sinterest. #"   [4]Alawyermayacceptrepresentationwheretherequisitelevelofcompetencecanbe {% $ achievedbyreasonablepreparation.Thisappliesaswelltoalawyerwhoisappointedascounsel d&!% foranunrepresentedperson.SeealsoRule6.2. M'"& _______ _  ThoroughnessandPreparation  )o$(   [5]Competenthandlingofaparticularmatterincludesinquiryintoandanalysisofthe *B&* factualandlegalelementsoftheproblem,anduseofmethodsandproceduresmeetingthe ++'+ standardsofcompetentpractitioners.Italsoincludesadequatepreparation.Therequired  attentionandpreparationaredeterminedinpartbywhatisatstake;majorlitigationandcomplex  transactionsordinarilyrequiremoreelaboratetreatmentthanmattersoflesserconsequence.     MaintainingCompetence  T q  [6]Tomaintaintherequisiteknowledgeandskill,alawyershouldengageinregular ) y continuingstudyandeducationwhichispertinenttothelawyerspracticeandshould  b conscientiouslysatisfyallrequirementsforcontinuinglegaleducationinalljurisdictionsin  K whichthelawyerislicensedtopracticelaw.Ifasystemofpeerreviewhasbeenestablished,the  4  lawyershouldconsidermakinguseofitinappropriatecircumstances.      _DEFINITIONAL_ԀCROSSREFERENCES    ReasonablySeeRule1.0(_i_) s     COMMITTEENOTES E ComparisonToCurrentTennesseeEthicsRules  i   DR6101(A)(1)providesthatalawyershallnothandleamatter"whichheknowsor > 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 󀀀 M   ProposedRule1.1isidenticaltoABAModelRule1.1. "r  ChangesMadeto1997CommitteePreliminaryDraftInResponsetoComments  E    TheCommitteemodifiedComment[1]bydeletingthetwoexamplesofwhenalawyer "! mightbeheldtothestandardofaspecialist whenalawyerispracticinginafieldoflaw #" regardedbylawyersasrequiringspecialexpertise,orinwhichlawyersmaybecertifiedas $# specialistsbytheCommissiononSpecializationandContinuingLegalEducationand whena % $ lawyerclaimstohavespecialexpertise. l&!% _  TheCommitteemodifiedComment[2]bydeletingthestatementthat alawyershould >(#' notundertaketherepresentationofaclientinamatterthelawyerisnotpersonallycompetentto ')w$( handleunlesstheclientisfirstadvisedthatthelawyerwillneedtoassociateanotherlawyerin *`%) thematter. *I&* ? +2'+   TheCommitteedeletedComments[7]through[10],whichreadasfollows:  0   ` [7]InordertobecertifiedasaspecialistbytheCommissiononSpecialization  andContinuingLegalEducation,alawyermustcarryatleast$500,000malpractice k insurance.Althoughthereisnorulerequiringlawyerstocarrymalpracticeinsurance,a T lawyershouldcarrysuchmalpracticeinsurance,orhaveinreservesufficientassets,as =  willenablethelawyertocompensatethelawyersclientsforreasonablyforeseeable & v lossesthatmaybecausedbythefailureofthelawyertorepresenttheclientin  _ accordancewiththestandardsofreasonablelawyersinthisTennessee. H(#(# 0   ` [8]Althoughthedutysetforthinthisruleisonlyadutytoprovidecompetent    representationtoapersonalawyerisrepresentingasaclient,alawyershouldalsoact   reasonablytopreventaprospectiveclientwhothelawyerdeclinestorepresentina   matterfromerroneouslyassumingthatthelawyersdecisionnottoundertakethe   representationconstitutesadvicewithrespecttothemeritsofthemattertheclienthas n  discussedwiththelawyer.Itisparticularlyimportantthatthelawyerdosoifthe W  prospectiveclienthasconsultedwiththelawyeraboutthematteratthelawyersoffice,at @ amutuallyprearrangedmeeting,oratameetinginitiatedbythelawyer.Upondeciding )y nottorepresenttheprospectiveclientinthematter,thelawyershould,priortoorwithin b areasonabletimeaftertheconclusionoftheconsultation,communicatewiththe K prospectiveclientinawayreasonablycalculatedtoinformtheprospectiveclientthatthe 4 lawyerisnotundertakingtherepresentationandthattheprospectiveclientshould  promptlyconsultanotherlawyerifheorsheisstillinterestedinpursuingthematter.In  manyinstancesalawyerwhodeclinestorepresentaprospectiveclientinamatterwillbe  welladvisedtocommunicatethisinformationtotheprospectiveclientinwriting.(#(#        ` [9]SeeRule1.8(H)withrespecttothevalidityofagreementsbetweenalawyer Z   andaclientwhichprospectivelylimitthelawyersliabilityformalpracticeorsettleclient C   claimsthatthelawyerdidnotprovidethemwithcompetentrepresentation.Although ,|   Rule1.2(D)permitsalawyerandclienttoagreetolimittheobjectivesorscopeofthe e   lawyersrepresentation,thelawyerisprohibitedfromenteringintoanysuchagreement N   aswouldpreventthelawyerfromprovidingtheclientwiththecompetentrepresentation  7   requiredbythisRule. !   0   ` [10]Ifalawyercomestoknowthatheorshehasnotprovidedcompetent #" representationtoaclientandthatthefailuretodosoislikelytohaveorhashada $# materialadverseeffectontherepresentationoftheclient,thelawyershouldtryto t% $ preventorrectifytheadverseeffect.Ifunabletodoso,thelawyershouldconsult_with ]&!% theclientabouttheproblemandactreasonablytocompensateclientforlossescausedby F'"& thefailureofthelawyertoprovidethecompetentrepresentationrequiredbythisrule./(#'(#(#   AlldeletionsweremadetobringProposedTennesseeRule1.1intoconformitywith *Q%)  ABAModelRule1.1.AlthoughtheCommitteeapprovedthesubstanceofthedeletedmaterial, *:&* itwastheconclusionthatitwasnotsufficientlyimportanttowarrantsacrificingtheuniformity  thatcomeswithadoptionoftheABAModelRule.   #X%XX2X%# CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges k Made 2X%XXX% U #X%XX2X%#2X%XXX%#X%XX2X%]#  1.InlightoftheCommitteesapprovalofasuggestionfrommembersoftheTBAsTax, ( x ProbateandTrustLawSectionthatComments[6]and[7]toRule1.14bemodifiedtoreplace  a theconceptofan emergencywithamorespecificreferencetosituationsinwhichaclientwill  J suffer imminentandirreparableharm,theCommitteeconcludedthatComment[3]tothisRule  3  shouldbesimilarlymodified.Inbothsituations,theCommitteewasconcernedthattheconcept    ofanemergencymightbetoonarrowlyconstruedsothatitwouldonlyembraceunexpectedand   suddenlyoccurringsituations,ratherthanallsituationsinwhichaclientneedsalawyershelpto   preventimminentandirreparableharm.Thischangeisalsoconsistentwiththesuggestionofthe   ProfessionalismCommitteeoftheKnoxvilleBarAssociationthatComment[3]sreferencetoan p   emergencybedefined.  Y    2.TheTBACommitteeconsidered,butdidnotapprove,therecommendationofthe ,| BoardofProfessionalResponsibilitythatProposedRule1.1bereplacedwiththesubstanceof e DR6101(A).TheBoardcontendsthatDR6101(A)(1)affordsclientsmoreprotection,willbe N easiertoenforce,andgivesmoreguidancetolawyers.Forthefollowingreasons,theTBA 7 CommitteedisagreeswiththeBoardsconclusionsforanumberofreasons:      ` a.ReplacingProposedRule1.1withDR6101wouldbeinconsistentwiththe    Committeesgoalofpromotinguniformityamongstateethicsrules.     ` b.ProposedRule1.1affordsclientsprotectionidenticaltotheprotection  ] 0  affordedbyDR6101(A)(2)and(3).Thereisnoquestionthatalawyerwho  @  F violatesDR6 101(A)(2)( alawyershallnothandlealegalmatterwithout  @  / preparationadequateinthecircumstances)willhavefailedtoprovide competent @6!  h representationtoaclientasdefinedinProposedRules1.1toinclude preparation @(!   Q reasonablynecessaryforthe h representation.Comment[5]reinforcesthispointby @b!   : repeatingthatreasonablycompetentrepresentation alsoincludesadequatepreparation. @#  !#  TheCommentprovidesfurtherguidancebystatingthat requiredattentionand  " ! preparationaredeterminedinpartbywhatisatstake;majorlitigationandcomplex @R!  #" transactionsordinarilyrequiremore  elaboratetreatmentthanmattersoflesser  $# consequence.Similarly,alawyerwhoviolatesDR6101(A)(3)( alawyershallnot @!  w% $ neglectalegalmatterentrustedtothelawyerwill p violateProposedRule1.1'sdutyto @"  `&!% providecompetentrepresentationasdefinedtoinclude thoroughnessandpreparation @1"  I'"& reasonablynecessaryfortherepresentation.)Neglectingamatterwouldalsoviolate @!  2(#' Rule1.3'srequirementthatthelawyeractwith reasonable  diligence.)k$((#(# 0   ` c.TheTBACommitteeacknowledgesthatProposedRule1.1differsfromDR6 *=&* 101(A)(1)inthatitdoesspecificallyprecludealawyerfrom handlingamatterthatthe +&'+ lawyerknowsorshouldknowthelawyerisnotcompetenttohandle.Alawyercannot  violateRule1.1byundertakingacasethatlawyerisnotcompetenttohandle.Rather,  Rule1.1willonlybeviolatedifthelawyer,havingundertakenacasethelawyerwasnot  competenttohandle,thereafterfailstoprovidecompetentrepresentation.Concurringin k thereasoningsetforthinComment[2],theCommitteebelievesthat,forpurposesof T discipline,thelawyershouldbejudgednotbywhatcompetenceheorsheisthoughtto =  havewhenacaseisundertaken,butratherbythequalityoftherepresentationactually & v providedtotheclientbyvirtueofthelawyerspreparationorassociationofanother  _ lawyer.Also,theTBACommitteedoesnotbelieveitmakessenseforalawyerwho  H competentlyrepresentedaclienttobeexposedtoariskofdisciplinebecausethelawyer  1  wasnotcompetenttohandlethematterwhentherepresentationwasundertaken.  (#(#    ` d.TheProposedRuleaffordsthepublicgreaterprotectionthanDR6101(A)     becauseitpermitsdisciplineofalawyerwhodoesnotneglectamatter,butwho      nonethelessfailstoprovidecompetentrepresentationbecauseofadefectineitherthe n    lawyersknowledgeorskillaswouldbereasonablynecessaryfortherepresentation. W     )y    f  g   @" PROPOSEDRULE1.2    @SCOPEOFTHEREPRESENTATIONANDTHEALLOCATIONOF    AUTHORITYBETWEENTHELAWYERANDCLIENT  ' to''(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 \ ?   [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 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 +%'+  [U ReasonableSeeRule1.0(_i_)   ConsultationSeeRule1.0(c)   KnowsSeeRule1.0(f) k  ReasonablyShouldKnowSeeRule1.0(k) T  FraudulentSeeRule1.0(e) =     COMMITTEENOTES  ` W h 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%  gWf  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  i 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 { 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%e# CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges   Made 2X%XXX%   #X%XX2X%I#  TheAttorneyGeneralhasvoicedconcernabouttheinconsistencybetweenRule1.2(a) p  andthestatutoryauthorityoftheAttorneyGeneralpursuanttoTenn.CodeAnn.86 Y  109(b)(1)and2013103.TheCommitteebelievesthatithasadequatelyaddressedthisproblem B inScope,Paragraph[4]. +{   d 2X%XXX%f  g f    PROPOSEDRULE1.3  DILIGENCE     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%) ComparisonToCurrentTennesseeEthicsRules  ++'+ 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%#  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  ζ ڶ (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 e  [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  d Reasonableand ReasonablySeeRule1.0(_i_) C    COMMITTEENOTES e  I 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: "!   (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%r# CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges    Made 2X%XXX%   f    Nocommentorchanges.f  g    Ѐf     .~ e   PROPOSEDRULE1.5  FEES    (a)Alawyer'sfeeandchargesforf  costs g f  g expensesf   g Ԁshallbereasonable.Thefactorstobeconsid n eredindeterminingthereasonablenessofafeeincludethefollowing: 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   a  [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, charged Ԁ charging  K unlawfulfeesorexpensesmaybeconsideredunreasonableundersection(a)ofthisRulesand 4 mayviolateRule8.4orotherrules.See,e.g.,Rule8.4(d)(prohibitingconductprejudicialtothe  administrationofjustice).     DivisionofFee   6  [ 4 Ԁ 5 ]Adivisionoffeeisasinglebillingtoaclientcoveringthefeeoftwoormore [ lawyerswhoarenotinthesamefirm.Adivisionoffeefacilitatesassociationofmorethanone D lawyerinamatterinwhichneitheralonecouldservetheclientaswell,andmostoftenisused -} whenthefeeiscontingentandthedivisionisbetweenareferringlawyerandatrialspecialist. f Paragraph(e)permitsthelawyerstodivideafeeoneitherthebasisoftheproportionofservices O theyrenderorbyagreementbetweentheparticipatinglawyersifallassumeresponsibilityforthe  8 representationasawholeandtheclientisadvisedanddoesnotobject.Itdoesnotrequire !!  disclosuretotheclientofthesharethateachlawyeristoreceive.Jointresponsibilityforthe " ! representationentailstheobligationsstatedinRule5.1forpurposesofthematterinvolved. #"    DisputesOverFees  u% $   [ 5 IԀ 6 u]Ifaprocedurehasbeenestablishedforresolutionoffeedisputes,suchasan H'"& arbitrationormediationprocedureestablishedbythebar,thelawyershouldconscientiously 1(#' considersubmittingtoit.Lawmayprescribeaprocedurefordeterminingalawyer'sfee,for )j$( example,inrepresentationofanexecutororadministrator,aclassorapersonentitledtoa *S%) reasonablefeeaspartofthemeasureofdamages.Thelawyerentitledtosuchafeeandalawyer *<&* representinganotherpartyconcernedwiththefeeshouldcomplywiththeprescribedprocedure. +%'+ _ԇ   _DEFINITIONAL_ԀCROSSREFERENCES   U 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%#CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges   Made2X%XXX%     #X%XX2X%O"#   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%?0#2X%XXX%f  g  k    PROPOSEDRULE1.6  CONFIDENTIALITY r0  0  (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 , unlessdisclosureisprohibitedorrestrictedbyRuleA6 #X%XX2X%0#2X%XXX% +{   3.3; 7#X%XX2X%6#2X%XXX% d  #X%XX2X%a7#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. $#    COMMENT _&!%  1==%XXdXXd=  [1]ThisRulegovernsthedisclosurebyalawyerofinformationrelatingtothe 2(#' representationofaclientduringthelawyersrepresentationoftheclient.SeeRule1.8(b)with )k$( 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. $#   AuthorizedDisclosure ]&!% M   [8]Alawyerisimpliedlyauthorizedtomakedisclosuresaboutaclientwhenappropriate 0(#' incarryingouttherepresentation,excepttotheextentthattheclient'sinstructionsorspecial )i$( circumstanceslimitthatauthority.Inlitigation,forexample,alawyermaydiscloseinformation *R%) byadmittingafactthatcannotproperlybedisputed,orinnegotiationbymakingadisclosure *;&* thatfacilitatesasatisfactoryconclusion. +$'+ Ї  [9]Lawyersinafirmmay,inthecourseofthefirm'spractice,disclosetoeachother  informationrelatingtoaclientofthefirm,unlesstheclienthasinstructedthatparticular  informationbeconfinedtospecifiedlawyers.      DisclosureAdversetoClient  T P  [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  *;&* q +%'+   [17]TheRulesofProfessionalConductinvariouscircumstancespermitorrequirea  lawyertodiscloseinformationrelatingtotherepresentation.SeeRules2.2,2.3,3.3and4.1.In  additiontotheseprovisions,alawyermaybeobligatedorpermittedbyotherprovisionsoflaw  togiveinformationaboutaclient.WhetheranotherprovisionoflawsupersedesRule1.6isa k matterofinterpretationbeyondthescopeoftheseRulesf  ,butapresumptionshouldexistagainst T suchasupersession g .f  g  =    [18]Alawyermustalsocomplywithlawfulordersofatribunal,anadministrativeor  _ executiveagency,oralegislativebody.Ifalawyeriscalledasawitnesstogivetestimony  H concerningaclient,orisotherwiseorderedtorevealinformationrelatingtotheclients  1  representation,thelawyermust,absentauthorizationfromtheclienttodootherwise,asserton    behalfoftheclientallnonfrivolousclaimsthattheinformationsoughtisprotectedagainst   disclosurebytheattorneyclientprivilegeorotherapplicablelaw.Intheeventofanadverse   ruling,thelawyershouldconsultwiththeclientaboutthepossibilityofappealingtheadverse   ruling.SeeRule1.4and1.2.Unlessanappealistaken,thelawyermustcomplywiththeorder. n     ActingCompetentlytoPreserveConfidentiality  @ x  [19]Alawyermustactcompetentlytosafeguardinformationrelatingtothe c representationofaclientagainstinadvertentorunauthorizeddisclosurebythelawyerorby L otherpersonswhoareparticipatingintherepresentationoftheclientorwhoaresubjecttothe 5 lawyerssupervision.SeeRules1.1,5.1,and5.3.    [20]Whentransmittingacommunicationthatincludesinformationrelatingtothe  representationofaclient,thelawyermusttakereasonableprecautionstopreventtheinformation  fromcomingintothehandsofunintendedrecipients.Thisduty,however,doesnotrequirethat r thelawyerutilizespecialsecuritymeasuresifthemethodofcommunicationaffordsareasonable [ expectationofprivacy.Specialcircumstances,however,maywarrantspecialprecautions. D Factorstobeconsideredindeterminingthereasonablenessofthelawyersexpectationof -} confidentialityincludethesensitivityoftheinformationandtheextenttowhichtheprivacyof f thecommunicationisprotectedbylaworbyaconfidentialityagreement.Aclientmayrequire O thelawyertoimplementspecialsecuritymeasuresnotrequiredbythisRuleormaygive  8 informedconsenttotheuseofameansofcommunicationthatwouldotherwisebeprohibitedby !!  thisRule. " ! f  g   f   g FormerClients  $# Qӂ   [21]Thedutyofconfidentialitycontinuesaftertheclientlawyerrelationshiphasbeen _&!% terminated. SeeRule1.9(c). H'"&    _DEFINITIONAL_ԀCROSSREFERENCES )m$(   ConsultationSeeRule1.0(c) *@&*  FraudSeeRule1.0(e) +)'+ _ Reasonably_See_Ԁ_Rule_Ԁ1.0(_i_)   _Reasonably_Ԁ_Believes_SeeRule1.0(j)   SubstantialSeeRule1.0(l)   TribunalSeeRule1.0(m) k     @ COMMITTEENOTES  =   ComparisonToCurrentTennesseeEthicsRules 󀀀  `   Paragraph(a):Thereferenceto informationrelatingtotherepresentationoftheclient  5  encompassesmoreinformationthanembracedbyDR4101(A)sreferenceto confidencesand     secrets.ThisisbecauseDR4101(A)defineda secretintermsofinformation"gainedin"   theprofessionalrelationshipthat"theclienthasrequestedbeheldinviolateorthedisclosureof   whichwouldbeembarrassingorwouldbelikelytobedetrimentaltotheclient."     Paragraph(b)(1):NocounterpartinTennesseeRules. [    Paragraph(b)(2):f  Substantiallysimilarf  g ԀtoDR4101(c)(3). -}   Paragraph(b)(3):NocounterpartinTennesseeRules. O   Paragraph(b)(4):NocounterpartinTennesseeRules. !   Paragraph(b)(5):DR4101(C)(4)permitsdisclosures necessarytoestablishorcollect  hisfeeortodefendhimselforhisemployeesorassociatesagainstanaccusationofwrongful  conduct. u    Paragraph(c):DR4101(C)(2)permitsdisclosure when...requiredby_law_Ԁ_or_Ԁ_court_ H _order_. _ 1 f  g _Comparison_Ԁ_to_Ԁ_ABA_Ԁ_Model_ԀRules   W   Paragraph(a):ProposedRule1.6(a)isidenticaltoABAModelRule1.6(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 P'"& clientfromcommittingacrimeortorectifysubstantialresultingfromacrimeorfraudin_the_ 9(#' _commission_Ԁ_of_Ԁwhichtheclientshadusedthelawyersservices. ")r$(   Paragraph(b)(4):ThereisnocounterpartintheABAModelRules. *D&*    +-'+   Paragraph(b)(5):Paragraph(b)(5)isidenticaltotheABAModelRule1.6(b)(2).    Paragraph(c): ThereisnocounterpartintheABAModelRules.   ChangesMadeto1997CommitteePreliminaryDraftInResponsetoComments  W 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 + { PreliminaryDraft.  d   Paragraph(b)(1): TheCommitteehasbroadenedthegrantofpermissiontolawyersto  6  revealinformationrelatingtotherepresentationofaclientforthepurposeofpreventingdeathor  "  substantialbodily.Disclosureisnowpermittedwithoutanyrequirementthatitbetheresult   clientscrime.Alsothedeathorinjurynolongermustbeimminent.Itissufficientiftheharm   isreasonablycertaintooccur.ThischangeisconsistentwiththeAmericanLawInstitute   RestatementoftheLawGoverningLawyers. v    Paragraph(b)(2):Paragraph(b)(2)isnewandpermitsdisclosuretopreventthe H commissionofanycrime(withanexceptionforthosecrimesagainsttheadministrationof 1 justicethatareaddressedbyRule3.3).Thiscarriesforwardintotheproposedrulethe j permissiontorevealclientconfidencesandsecretsgrantedbyDR4-101(c)(3). S   DeletionofParagraph(B)(3)ofthePreliminaryDraft:TheCommitteedeletedparagraph % (B)(3)thatpermitteddisclosure"toinformalawfirmwithwhomthelawyerproposesto  associate,orwithwhomthelawyerhasassociated,oftheidentityofthelawyersclients,and  generalsubjectmatteroftherepresentationofthoseclients,butonlyifthelawyerreasonably  believesthatsuchdisclosurewillnotmateriallydisadvantagetheclient." Giventhelimited y natureoftheinformationinvolvedandthegenerallyacceptedpracticeamonglawyers,the e Committeeconcludedthatthisexceptionwasnotnecessary. N    Paragraph(b)(3):Paragraph(b)(3)isnewandpermitsdisclosuretorectifyormitigate !q substantialfinanciallossresultingfromaclientscrimeorfraudinwhichtheclientusedthe  Z lawyersservices.Therationaleforthisexceptionisthattheclienthasabusedthe  C attorney-clientrelationshipbyusingthelawyersservicestocommitthecrimeorfraudandhas !,  therebyforfeitedtheprotectionsofRule1.6. "!    Paragraph(b)(4):Paragraph(b)(4)representsatighterformulationoftheexceptionin $# paragraph(B)(2)ofthePreliminaryDraft.Thechangehasnoeffectonthescopeofthe % $ exception. j&!%   Paragraph(c)(1):TheCommitteehasdeletedthereferencesto"anagency"sothelawyer <(#' isonlyrequiredtocomplywithordersofa"tribunal."TheCommitteethinksthatconfidentiality %)u$( issoimportantthatlawyersshouldonlyberequiredtoabidebytheorderofacourtora *^%) comparableadjudicativebody. *G&*  +0'+ #X%XX2X%7# CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges  Made 2X%XXX%  #X%XX2X%/#  1.Fordifferentreasons,theKnoxvilleBarAssociationandtheEastTennesseeVictims m RightsTaskForcehavevoicedconcernabouttheCommitteesrecommendationthatRule1.6 V protectall informationrelatingtotherepresentationofaclient.The_KBA_sconcernisthatthe ?  breadthoftheprotectionwillunnecessarilyprohibitlawyersfromsharinginformationacquired ( x duringarepresentationthatwouldhelpeducatethebarorfacilitatesettlementandmediation.  a TheVictimsRightsTaskForce,ontheotherhand,objectsbecauseRule1.6protectsmorethan  J theclientscommunicationswiththelawyerandaffordslawyersashieldbehindwhichtheycan  3  hidetoavoidwhatmostcitizenswouldconsiderourobligationstoourcommunities.      TheCommitteeconcedesthatRule1.6protectsmoreinformationthanprotectedbythe   DR4101,whichonlyprotects confidencesand secrets.TheessentialdifferenceisthatRule   1.6precludesdisclosureofinformationrelatingtotherepresentationwithoutregardtowhether p  disclosurewouldbeembarrassingorwouldlikelytodetrimentaltotheclient.TheCommittee, Y  however,doesnotsharethe_KBA_sconcernaboutthisruleasanimpedimenttoeducationofthe B barbecause,asnotedinComment[7],lawyerscanuse_hypotheticals_Ԁtosharetheirexperience +{ withotherlawyers.NordoestheRuleprecludeadisclosurethatwillfacilitatesettlementor d mediationbecausesuchdisclosureswouldbeimpliedlyauthorizedtocarryoutthe M representation.Theclientcanalsoexpresslyauthorizesuchdisclosures.Nordoesthe 6 CommitteeagreewiththeVictimsRightsTaskForcecriticismbecausetheinformationabout  whichtheyareconcernedinformationrelatingtothecommissionofcrimewouldbeharmful  totheclientandwouldthereforeconstitutea secretunderDR4101(A).Inthisregard,the  Committeesproposaldoesnotchangethelaw.Moreimportantly,theCommitteewouldnote  thatitsproposalbroadensthecircumstancesinwhichalawyerispermittedtodisclose s informationrelatingtoaclientsrepresentationtopreventlossoflifeorsubstantialbodilyharm, \ topreventtheclientfromcommittingacrime,andtorectifyormitigatetheconsequencesofa E crimeorfraudinwhichtheclientusedthelawyersservices. .~   2._T._Ԁ_Maxfield_Ԁ_Bahner_ԀofChattanoogaBarhasaskedtheCommitteetofollowtheleadof  P theABAHouseofDelegatesandtheAmericanCollegeofTrialLawyersanddeleteParagraphs  9 (b)(2)and(b)(3).Theeffectofthisproposalwouldbetoprohibitlawyers,absentclientconsent, !"  fromrevealinginformationrelatingtotheclientsrepresentation,evenwhennecessaryto " ! preventtheclientfromcommittingacrimeortomitigateorrectifytheconsequencesofacrime #" orfraudinthecommissionofwhichtheclienthadusedthelawyersservices.Withduerespect $# totheAmericanCollegeofTrialLawyersandtheABAHouseofDelegates,theCommittee v% $ believestheirpositiononconfidentialityisoutoflinewiththeprevailingsentimentinTennessee _&!% andmostotherjurisdictionsaboutthecircumstancesinwhichlawyersshouldbepermittedto H'"& takeactiontoprotectothersfromthewrongfulconductoftheirclients.Paragraph(b)(2)is 1(#' consistentwithcurrentlawinTennessee,andParagraph(b)(3)onlypermitsdisclosureswhenthe )j$( clienthasgrosslyabusedtheattorneyclientrelationshipbyusingthelawyersservicesin *S%) 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  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_  _asked_Ԁ_the_Ԁ_Court_Ԁ_to_Ԁ_drop_Ԁ_the_Ԁ_exception_Ԁ_to_Ԁ_the_Ԁ_lawyer__s_Ԁ_right_Ԁtorevealaclientsintentionto k commitacrime.The_Committee_Ԁ_urges_Ԁ_the_ԀCourtnottodoso._The_Ԁsolepurposeforthecross T referencetoRule3.3inParagraph(b)(3)istoclarifythatRule3.3,ratherthanRule1.6(2), =  governswhenthecrimeinquestionrelatestoanadjudicativeproceeding.Paragraphs(c)and & v (d)ofRule3.3donotallowdisclosureincasesinwhichtheclientintendsorhascommitteda  _ fraudagainstthecourtoranoffenseagainsttheadministrationofjustice(otherthanjury  H tampering).SeetheCommitteesdiscussionofproposalstomodifyRule3.3.Permitting  1  disclosurepursuanttoRule1.6(b)(2)wouldbeinconsistentwiththerestrictionsondisclosurein    Rule3.3.IftheCourtapprovestheCommitteesproposalwithrespecttoRule3.3,itshouldnot   changeRule1.6(b)(2).     4.Paragraph(b)(3):Onitsownmotion,theCommitteeproposesthatanexception n  comparabletothatinParagraph(b)(2)beaddedtoParagraph(b)(3)thatpermitsdisclosureto W  rectifytheconsequencesofaclientscrimeorfraud.Uponreviewoftherelationshipbetween @ theexceptionsinRule1.6(b)andRule3.3,theCommitteeconcludedthattheremightbe )y situationsinwhichParagraph(b)(3)mightbereadtopermitdisclosureinsituationsinwhichit b wouldbeprohibitedbyRule3.3.Onceagain,thesolepurposeofthischangeistoclarifythat K lawyersmustbeguidedbyRule3.3ratherthanRule1.6(b)(3)whenthecrimeinfraudin 4 questionrelatestoanadjudicativeproceeding.    5._Paragraphs_Ԁ(_b_)(1)_and_Ԁ(b)(2):BoththeUnitedStatesAttorneysandtheTennessee  DistrictAttorneysGeneralConferencehaveaskedtheCourttomodifytheCommitteesproposal  inParagraphs(b)(1)and(b)(2)soastorequire(ratherthanmerelypermit)lawyerstoreveal q informationrelatingtoclientsrepresentationtotheextentnecessarytopreventreasonably Z certaindeathorsubstantialbodilyharmandtopreventtheclientoranotherpersonfrom C committingacrime.TheCommitteeopposesthisproposalbecauseitwouldimposean ,| obligationonlawyersthatisnotimposedonothercitizensandwoulddosoinsituationsin e whichthelawyerhasnogreaterability,eitherbyvirtueoftrainingorexperience,topredict N wheredeathorsubstantialbodilyinjurywillresultorthattheclientwillactuallycarryoutthe  7 crimeinquestion.TheCommitteeisalsoconcernedthatmandatorydisclosurewouldhavea !   muchgreateradverseaffectonclientswillingnesstoconfidewiththeirlawyersthanwouldbe " ! thecasewhenthelawyerispermittedtodisclose,butretainsthediscretiontoremainsilent. #"   6._The_Ԁ_Attorney_Ԁ_General_ԀhasvoicedconcernsabouttherelationshipbetweenRule1.6and t% $ theOpenMeetingLaw,asinterpretedbytheCourtinSmithCountyEduc.Assnv.Anderson, ]&!% 676S.W.2d328(Tenn.1984),_and_Ԁ_Van_Ԁ_Hooser_Ԁv.WarrenCo.Bd.ofEduc.,807S.W.2d230 F'"& (Tenn.1991).TheAttorneyGeneralisconcernedthatthesedecisionsmightnotbedeemed /(#'  otherlawrequiringdisclosureandhisconcernisheightenedbytheassertioninComment[17] )h$( thatthereshouldbeapresumptionagainstotherlawsupercedingRule1.6.TheCommittee *Q%) believesthatitisbeyondquestionthatastatutesuchastheOpenMeetingsAct,asinterpretedby *:&* theSupremeCourt,constitutes otherlawwithinthemeaningofRule1.6(c).Also,the +#'+ CommitteebelievesthatithasadequatelyaddressedtheAttorneyGeneralsconcernsbyadding  aspecificreferencetotheOpenMeetingsActinScope,Paragraph[4],andbydeletingthe  assertioninRule1.6,Comment[17]thatthereshouldbeapresumptionagainstotherlaw  supercedingRule1.6.ThedeletedassertioninComment[17]wascontainedintheABAModel k RuleComment,buttheCommitteeconcursintherecommendationoftheABAEthics2000 T Commissionthatitbedeletedasanunnecessaryandinappropriateattemptcontroltheresolution =  ofaquestionoflawthattheCommentacknowledgesisbeyondthescopeoftheRules. & v 2X%XXX%A%XXdXXdm=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       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  h  [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 x  [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   q  [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. $#   [15]f  g Membersofafamilygroupmayreasonablyseekjointrepresentationbyasingle _&!% lawyerinamatteraffectingthefamily.f   g Conflictquestionsmayf  also g ariseinf  g suchcircumstances. H'"& Forexample,inf   g estateplanningf  Ԁandestateadministration.A g f  g ,af   g Ԁlawyermaybecalleduponto 1(#' preparewillsforseveralfamilymembers,suchashusbandandwife,and,dependinguponthe )j$( circumstances,aconflictofinterestmayarise.f  g Resolutionofconflictsofinterestbetweenfamily *S%) memberspursuanttothisRulemustbeconsistentwiththelawyersdutyofundividedloyaltyto *<&* eachclient,butthelawyermaytakeintoaccountthewillingnessofeachindividualclientto +%'+ accommodatetheinterestsofthefamilyasawholeortheindividualinterestofotherfamily  members.f   g Inestateadministration,theidentityoftheclientmaybeunclearf  Ԁunderthelawofa  particularjurisdiction. g f  g .f   g ԀUnderoneview,theclientisthefiduciary;underanotherviewtheclient  istheestateortrust,includingitsbeneficiaries.Thelawyershouldmakecleartherelationshipto k thepartiesinvolved. T   [16]Alawyerforacorporationorotherorganizationwhoisalsoamemberofitsboard & v ofdirectorsshoulddeterminewhethertheresponsibilitiesofthetworolesmayconflict.The  _ lawyermaybecalledontoadvisethecorporationinmattersinvolvingactionsofthedirectors.  H Considerationshouldbegiventothefrequencywithwhichsuchsituationsmayarise,the  1  potentialintensityoftheconflict,theeffectofthelawyer'sresignationfromtheboardandthe    possibilityofthecorporation'sobtaininglegaladvicefromanotherlawyerinsuchsituations.If   thereismaterialriskthatthedualrolewillcompromisethelawyer'sindependenceof   professionaljudgment,thelawyershouldnotserveasadirector.      ConflictChargedbyanOpposingParty  W    [17]Resolvingquestionsofconflictofinterestisprimarilytheresponsibilityofthe *z lawyerundertakingtherepresentation.Inlitigation,acourtmayraisethequestionwhenthereis c reasontoinferthatthelawyerhasneglectedtheresponsibility.Inacriminalcase,inquirybythe L courtisgenerallyrequiredwhenalawyerrepresentsmultipledefendants.Wheretheconflictis 5 suchasclearlytocallinquestionthefairorefficientadministrationofjustice,opposingcounsel  mayproperlyraisethequestion.Suchanobjectionshouldbeviewedwithcaution,however,for  itcanbemisusedasatechniqueofharassment.     SpecialConsiderationsinJointRepresentation  r   [18]Inconsideringwhethertorepresentclientsjointlyinthesamematter,suchas E representingcoplaintiffsorcodefendant,alawyershouldbemindfulthatifthejoint .~ representationfailsbecausethepotentiallyadverseinterestscannotbereconciled,theresultcan g beadditionalcost,embarrassment,andrecrimination.Ordinarily,thelawyerwillbeforcedto  P withdrawfromrepresentingalloftheclientsifthejointrepresentationfailsf  g ,unless_each_Ԁ_client_  9  _consults_ Ԁ_consents_Ԁ_after_Ԁ_consultation_f   g .f  g f  g  !"    [19]Aparticularlyimportantfactorindeterminingtheappropriatenessofjoint #" representationistheeffectonlawyerclientconfidentialityandtheattorneyclientprivilege. $# Withregardtotheevidentiaryattorneyclientprivilege,theprevailingruleisthatasbetween v% $ commonlyrepresentedclients,theprivilegedoesnotattach.Hence,itmustbeassumedthat,if _&!% litigationeventuatesbetweentheclients,theprivilegewillnotprotectanysuchcommunications, H'"& andtheclientsshouldbesoadvised. 1(#'   [20]Astothedutyofconfidentiality,jointrepresentationwillalmostcertainlybe *S%) inadequateifoneclientattemptstokeepsomethinginconfidencebetweenthelawyerandthat *<&* client,whichisnottobedisclosedtotheotherclient.Thisissobecausethelawyerhasanequal +%'+ dutyofloyaltytoeachclient,andeachclienthastherighttobeinformedofanythingbearingon  therepresentationthatmightaffectthatclientsinterestsandtoexpectthatthelawyerwilluse  thatinformationtothatclientsbenefit.SeeRule1.4.Thelawyershould,attheoutsetofthe  jointrepresentationandaspartoftheprocessofobtainingeachclientsf  informed g consent,advise k eachclientthatf  informationwillbesharedandthat g thelawyerwillf  havetowithdrawifone_client_ T _decides g f  g share_Ԁ_all_Ԁinformationmaterialtotherepresentationwitheachofthejointlyrepresented =  clients,unlessspecificallyinstructedbyone_of_Ԁ_the_Ԁ_clients_Ԁ_not_Ԁ_to_Ԁdoso.Thelawyershouldalso & v adviseeachclientthat,ifanyclientlaterinsistsf   g Ԁthatsomemattermaterialtotherepresentation  _ shouldbekeptfromtheotherf  g ,thelawyerwillabidebytheclientsinstructionstomaintainthe  H confidentialityofthespecifiedinformation,butthatitislikelythatthelawyerwillberequiredto  1  withdrawfromtherepresentationf   g .f  g f  g ԀInlimitedcircumstancesf  g ,howeverf   g ,itmaybeappropriatefor    thelawyertoproceedwiththerepresentationwhentheclientshaveagreef  d g ,afterbeingproperly   informed,thatthelawyerwillkeepcertaininformationconfidential.       [21]Subjecttotheabovelimitations,eachclientinthejointrepresentationhastheright n  toloyalanddiligentrepresentationandtheprotectionofRule1.9concerningtheobligationstoa W  formerclient.EachclientalsohastherighttodischargethelawyerasstatedinRule1.16. @    RelationtoOtherRules b  V)  [22]Whenalawyerrepresentsaclientinapartisanrole,whetherasanadvocate,an 5 advisor,ortheauthorofalegalopiniontoberenderedonbehalfoftheclientforusebyathird  person,thisruleprovidesspecialprotectionsfortheclienttoassurethatthelawyersloyaltywill  notbedilutedbyinterestsofotherclientsorinterestsofthelawyerorthirdpersons.Thisrule,  however,isnotapplicablef  ,however, g Ԁtof  g Ԁconflictsofinterestaffectingf   g Ԁclientsthelawyer  undertakestoserveasanintermediary.#X%XX2X%#f  SeeRule2.2. g f  g If,forexample,businesspersonsor r membersofafamilyareseekingthelawyersadviceorassistanceinanonadversarialeffortto [ accomplishacommonobjectivewithrespecttotheformation,conduct,modificationor D terminationofaconsensualrelationbetweenthem,suchastheformationofabusinessora -} purchaseorsaleofproperty,Rule2.2applies.Similarly,iftheeffectuationofanestateplanor f othergratuitoustransferentailstheformation,modificationorterminationofaconsensuallegal O relationshipbetweenclients,andthelawyeractsasanintermediaryinconnectionwiththe  8 transaction,Rule2.2applies.Otherwise,thisRuleapplies.2X%XXX%f   g Noristhisruleapplicableto !!  f  g conflictsofinterestaffectingf   g parties_to_Ԁ_a_Ԁ_dispute_Ԁ_whof  g _Ԁ_a_Ԁ_lawyer_Ԁ_undertakes_Ԁtoserveasadispute " ! resolutionneutral.SeeRule2.4.f  ԀIf,however,thelawyer'srepresentationofclientsasan #" intermediary,orthelawyer'sserviceasadisputeresolutionneutral,willbedirectlyadverseto $# anotherclientorwillmateriallylimitthelawyer'srepresentationofanotherclient,thelawyer u% $ mustaffordthatclienttheprotectionsofthisRuleatthesametimethatthelawyerisaffording ^&!% theclientsbeingservedasanintermediarytheprotectionsofRule2.2oratthesametimethe G'"& lawyerisaffordingthepartiesbeingservedasaneutraltheprotectionsofRule2.4. g Ԁ 0(#'    _DEFINITIONAL_Ԁ_CROSS_ԄREFERENCES *R%)  5 ReasonablyBelievesSeeRule1.0(j) +%'+  ConsentsinWritingSeeRule1.0(b)   ConsultationSeeRule1.0(c)   MateriallySeeRule1.0(g)     COMMITTEENOTES T _7ComparisonToCurrentTennesseeEthicsRules  ( x   _DR_Ԁ5-101(_A_)_provides_Ԁ_that_,"[_e]xcept_Ԁ_with_Ԁ_the_Ԁ_consent_Ԁ_of_Ԁhisclientafterfulldisclosure,a  K lawyershallnotacceptemploymentiftheexerciseofhisprofessionaljudgmentonbehalfofthe  4  clientwillbeorreasonablymaybeaffectedbyhisownfinancial,business,property,orpersonal    interests."DR5105(A)providesthatalawyer"shalldeclineprofferedemploymentifthe   exerciseofhisindependentprofessionaljudgmentinbehalfofaclientwillbeorislikelytobe   adverselyaffectedbytheacceptanceoftheprofferedemployment,orifitwouldbelikelyto   involvehiminrepresentingdifferinginterests,excepttotheextentpermittedunderDR q  5-105(C)."DR5-105(C)providesthat"alawyermayrepresentmultipleclientsifitisobvious Z  thathecanadequatelyrepresenttheinterestofeachandifeachconsentstotherepresentation C afterfulldisclosureofthepossibleeffectofsuchrepresentationontheexerciseofhis ,| independentprofessionaljudgmentonbehalfoneach." e  g _Comparison_Ԁ_To_Ԁ_ABA_ԀModelRules  7   Tf  g heProposedRuleisidenticaltoABAModelRule1.7,exceptforitsrequirementof   writtenconsentstowaiveconflictsofinterest.  f  g f  g ChangesMadeto1997CommitteePreliminaryDraftInResponsetoComments  w #X%XX2X%j0#f    Paragraph(a):ThecrossreferencetoRule2.2wasdropped.Therelationshipbetween L Rule1.7andRule2.2isdiscussedintheComment. 5   Comment[6]hasbeenaddedtoclarifythattheRuledoesnotprecludegovernment  W clientsfromgivingconsenttoarepresentationinvolvingaconflictofinterest.  @   Comment[7]hasbeenaddedtoexplaintherequirementthattheclientsconsenttoa "! conflictofinterestbeinwriting. #" 2X%XXX%f  g   Comments[18]through[21]wereaddedtoexplaintherelationshipbetweenthe }% $ confidentialitydutiesinRule1.6andtheconflictofinterestrules. f&!% #X%XX2X%fB# CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges 8(#' Made 2X%XXX% ")r$( f  #X%XX2X%C#  1.Inresponse_to_Ԁ_suggestions_Ԁ_from_ԀtheTBATax,Probate,andTrustLawSection,the *E&* CommitteeproposeschangestoComments[15],[18],and[22]forthepurposeofclarifyingthe +.'+ applicabilityofthisRuletothejointrepresentationoffamilymembersandexplainingthe  relationshipbetweenRule1.7,whichisapplicabletoajointrepresentationinconnectionwitha  gratuitoustransfer,andRule2.2,whichisapplicabletoquidproquoexchangesbetweenclients  whoarejointlyrepresentedbyasinglelawyeractingasanintermediarybetweentheclients. k   2.TheCommitteeproposesamodificationtoComment[20]forthepurposeofclarifying =  thatthewaiverofconfidentialitythatisnormallyaprerequisiteforajointrepresentationcanbe & v revokedatanytimepriortoalawyersdisclosure,thatthelawyerwillberequiredtorespectthe  _ demandforconfidentiality,andthat,insuchasituation,thelawyerwillnormallyhaveto  H withdrawfromthejointrepresentation.ThischangeconfirmstherejectionbytheCommitteeof  1  arequestfromtheTBATax,Probate,andTrustLawSectionforamodificationofComment    [20]toindicatethataclientswaiverofconfidentialityinconnectionwithajointrepresentation   isirrevocable.AlthoughrecognizingthatclientscanwaivetheprotectionsofRule1.6,the   Committeebelievesthatconfidentialityistooimportanttoallow,muchlessrequire,irrevocable   waivers.Also,suchirrevocablewaiversshouldnotbepermittedbecauseitisunlikelythatthe n  clientwillbeableatthetimeofthewaivertoforeseeallfuturecircumstancesinwhichthe W  waivermightadverselyaffecthis/herinterests.TheCommitteesviewisconsistentwithits @ positionthatclientsmustretainthepowertorevokeauthoritytheyhavepreviouslygivena )y lawyertotakeactionontheirbehalf.SeeRule1.2,Comment[4]. b   3.TheBoardofProfessionalResponsibilityhasaskedtheCourttoamendparagraphs(a) 4 and(b)sothatalawyermaynotaskaclienttoconsenttoaconflictofinterestunless itis  obviousthattherelationshipwiththeclientortherepresentationwillnotbeaffectedbythe  conflictofinterest.ThisisthestandardcurrentlyusedinDR5105(C).TheCommittees  proposalpermitsthelawyertoseekclientconsentifthelawyer reasonablybelievesthatthe  relationshipwiththeclientortherepresentationwillnotbeadverselyaffected. Reasonably q believesisadefinedtermanddenotesthatthelawyerbelievesthematterinquestionandthat Z thecircumstancesaresuchthatthebeliefisreasonable.SeeRule1.0(j).Reasonablenessis C determinedfromtheperspectiveofareasonablyprudentandcompetentlawyer._See_Ԁ_Rule_Ԁ1.0(_i_). ,| ЀTheBoardarguesthatitsversionis clearer, moreenforceable,and moreprotectiveofthe e publicinterest.TheCommitteerespectfullydisagrees. N   TheBoardsproposalwouldcreateconfusion,ratherthanaddclarity,becauseitwould !   introduceanew,undefinedtermintoadocumentthatemploysaninterrelatedsetofdefined " ! termsto_specify_Ԁ_the_Ԁ _scienter__element_Ԁ_in_Ԁtheeachoftherules.Also,asProposedRule1.7has #" beenverywidelyadoptedbyotherjurisdictions,thechangeproposedbytheBoardwouldbe $# inconsistentwiththeCommitteesgoalofpromoting_uniformity_Ԁ_among_Ԁ_state_Ԁ_ethics_Ԁ_rules_.This t% $ needforuniformityisparticularlyacutewithrespecttothiscentralconflictofinterestrule.With ]&!% respecttoeaseofenforcement,theCommitteedoesnotseehowitwillbeeasiertoprovewhatis F'"& obvioustoareasonablelawyerthatitwillbetoprovewhatareasonablelawyerwouldconclude /(#' underthecircumstances.Ineithercase,theCourtmustdeterminewhatthereasonablelawyer )h$( wouldascertainunderthecircumstances.Thatonestandardmaybestricterthantheotherdoes *Q%) notmeanthatitwillbeeasiertoprovethatthestandardhasbeenviolated.Finally,withrespect *:&* totheBoardsargumentthatitsproposalwillbe moreprotectiveofthepublic,theCommittee +#'+ acknowledgesthatProposedRule1.7willpermitclientstogivetheirconsenttoajoint  representationinsomecircumstancesinwhichtheywouldnotbeallowedtodosoiftheBoards  proposalwereadopted.Suchaddedprotection,however,comesatahighprice.Thepriceisthe  restrictionontheclientsfreedomtoretaincounseloftheirchoice.TheCommitteebelievesthat k _that_ԀProposedRule1.7,withitsfocusonthelawyersreasonablebeliefthatneitherthe T relationshipwiththeclientnortherepresentationwillbeadverselyaffected,affordsclientsthe =  protectiontheyneedwithoutundulyrestrictingtheirfreedomtoconsent,afterconsultation,toa & v representationaffectedbyaconflictofinterest.  _   4.TheAttorneyGeneralhasvoicedconcernthatRule1.7maybeinconsistentwithhis  1  statutoryresponsibilitieswithrespecttotherepresentationoftheState,itsagencies,andofficers.    TheCommitteebelievesthatithasadequatelyaddressedthisissuebyitsrevisionofScope,   Paragraph[4],andthattheissueofwhethertheAttorneyGeneralisauthorizedbylawto   representstateagenciesandemployeeswhentheconflictofinterestruleswouldprohibitother   lawyersfromdoingsoshouldberesolvedasamatteroflaw,ratherthanbycreatingexceptions n  intheethicsrules. W    5.TheTennesseeDistrictAttorneysGeneralConferenceandtheUnitedStatesAttorneys )y haverequestedthatanewparagraph(c)toaddedtoRule1.7thatwouldprohibitthe b representationofmorethanoneclientinacriminalcaseunlessthelawyeraffirmativelyshowsto K thetribunalthatnoconflictexistsorwillexist.AlthoughtheCommitteehasrecognizedin 4 Comment[9]that thepotentialforconflictofinterestinacriminalcaseissogravethat  ordinarilyalawyershoulddeclinetorepresentmorethanonedefendant,theCommitteeis  stronglyopposedtoconditioningsuchjointrepresentationonanaffirmativedemonstrationto  thecourtthatthereisnoconflictofinterestornolikelihoodthataconflictofinterestwill  materialize.Inthefirstplace,theimpositionofsuchaspecialdutyimpliesthatcriminaldefense q attorneysarelesslikelythanotherlawyerstoconscientiouslycomplywiththeconflictof Z interestrules.TheCommitteedoesnotbelievethattobethecase.Second,itverydifficultto C affirmativelyproveanegativeproposition,andtodosothelawyerwouldhavetoprematurely ,| revealherdefensestrategyorotherinformationrelatingtotherepresentation.TheCommittee e doesnotbelievesthatitisappropriatetoforceacriminaldefendanttomakeachoicebetweena N jointrepresentationandtheprematuredisclosureofinformationrelatingthedefense.Third,if  7 thereisaneedforjudicialapprovalofjointrepresentationincriminalcases,theCommittee !   believesthatsucharequirementshouldbeimposedbytheRulesofCriminalProcedurerather " ! thantheRulesofProfessionalConduct.Finally,formanyyears,theTennesseeSupremeCourt #" haswiselyavoidedadoptingsuchperserulesconcerninglawyerconflictsofinterest,see,e.g., $# Statev.Jones(InreBanks),726S.W.2d515(Tenn.1987);InrePetitionof_Youngblood_,895 t% $ S.W.2d322(Tenn.1995,anddecliningtoenshrinesucharuleoflawintheblackletterof ]&!% Tennesseesethicsruleswouldbeconsistentwiththistradition. F'"&   +#'+ Ї2X%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$(   orwiththeclient-lawyerrelationship;and *T%)   (3)informationrelatingtorepresentationofaclientisprotectedasrequiredbyRule#X%XX2X%j#2X%XXX% +&'+   1.6.  (g)Alawyerwhorepresentstwoormoreclientsshallnotparticipateinmakinganaggregate  settlementoftheclaimsoforagainsttheclients,orinacriminalcaseanaggregatedagreement k astoguiltyornolocontenderepleas,unless: T   (1)theclientisgivenareasonableopportunitytoseektheadviceofindependent  & v   counselinthetransaction;and  _ 0  (2)eachclientconsentsinwritingafterconsultation,includingdisclosureoftheexistence  1  andnatureofalltheclaimsorpleasinvolvedandoftheparticipationofeachpersonin    thesettlement. (#(# (h)Alawyershallnot:     (1)enterintoanagreementwithaprospective,current,orformerclientto  W     ` prospectivelylimitthelawyersliabilitytotheclientformalpractice;and @   (2)shallnotsettleaclaimforsuchliability,unless: b    ` (a)theclientisrepresentedinthematterbyindependentcounsel;or 4    ` (b)thelawyerfullydisclosesallthetermsoftheagreementtotheclientina     ` mannerwhichcanreasonablybeunderstoodbytheclient,advisestheclient     ` toseektheadviceofindependentcounsel,andaffordstheclientareasonable     ` opportunitytodoso. q (_i_)Alawyerrelatedtoanotherlawyerasparent,child,siblingorspouseshallnotrepresenta C clientinarepresentationdirectlyadversetoapersonwhomthelawyerknowsisrepresentedby ,| theotherlawyerf  exceptuponconsentby g f  g unless,f   g Ԁtheclientf  g Ԁconsentsinwritingf   g Ԁafterconsultation e regardingtherelationship. N   (j)Alawyershallnotacquireaproprietaryinterestinthecauseofactionorsubjectmatterof !   litigationthelawyerisconductingforaclient,exceptthatthelawyermay: " ! 0  (1)acquirealiengrantedbylawtosecurethelawyer'sfeeorexpenses;and$#(#(# 0   (#(#   (2)contractwithaclientforareasonablecontingentfeeinacivilcase. ]&!%   COMMENT /(#'   TransactionsBetweenClientandLawyer  *S%)  т *=&*   [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 ʊ  [3]Anagreementbywhichalawyeracquiresliteraryormediarightsconcerningthe  conductoftherepresentationcreatesaconflictbetweentheinterestsoftheclientandthe  personalinterestsofthelawyer.Measuressuitableintherepresentationoftheclientmaydetract  fromthepublicationvalueofanaccountoftherepresentation.Paragraph(d)doesnotprohibita  lawyerrepresentingaclientinatransactionconcerningliterarypropertyfromagreeingthatthe r lawyer'sfeeshallconsistofashareinownershipintheproperty,ifthearrangementconformsto [ Rule1.5andparagraph(j). D    PersonPayingforLawyer'sServices  f   [4]Rule1.8(f)requiresdisclosureofthefactthatthelawyer'sservicesarebeingpaidfor  9 byathirdparty.SuchanarrangementmustalsoconformtotherequirementsofRule1.6 !"  concerningconfidentialityandRule1.7concerningconflictofinterest.Wheretheclientisa " ! class,consentmaybeobtainedonbehalfoftheclassbycourt-supervisedprocedure. #"    LimitingLiability  v% $ %  [5]Paragraph(h)isnotintendedtoapplytocustomaryqualificationsandlimitationsin K'"& legalopinionsandmemoranda. 4(#'    RelationshipsBetweenLawyers  *V%)   *@&*   [6]Rule1.8(_i_)appliesto relatedlawyerswhoareindifferentfirms.Relatedlawyersin   thesamefirmaregovernedbyRules1.7,1.9,and1.10.ThedisqualificationstatedinRule1.8(_i_)  ispersonalandisnotimputedtomembersoffirmswithwhomthelawyersareassociated.See  Rule1.10. k    AcquisitionofInterestinLitigation  =  e  [7]Paragraph(j)statesthetraditionalgeneralrulethatlawyersareprohibitedfrom  ` acquiringaproprietaryinterestinlitigation.Thisgeneralrule,whichhasitsbasisincommon  I law_champerty_Ԁandmaintenance,issubjecttospecificexceptionsdevelopedindecisionallaw  2  andcontinuedintheseRules,suchastheexceptionforreasonablecontingentfeessetforthin    Rule1.5andtheexceptionforcertainadvancesofthecostsoflitigationsetforthinparagraph   (E).      _DEFINITIONAL_ԀCROSSREFERENCES o   D ConsentsinWritingSeeRule1.0(b) B  ConsultationSeeRule1.0(c) +{  Knowinglyand KnowsSeeRule1.0(f) d  Reasonableand ReasonablySeeRule1.0(_i_) M  SubstantialSeeRule1.0(l) 6     COMMITTEENOTES   O 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  Alsotheclientsconsentmustbegiveninwriting. 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%w# CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges B Made 2X%XXX% ,| #X%XX2X%N#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  6Ӏ 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.    p  COMMENT u    [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,alawyer many 4  1   may wԀnotonbehalfofalaterclientattackthevalidityofadocumentthatthelawyerdraftedif    doingsowouldmateriallyandadverselyaffecttheformerclient.Similarly,alawyermaynot   representadebtorinbankruptcyinseekingtosetasideasecurityinterestofacreditorthatis   embodiedinadocumentthatthelawyerpreviouslydraftedforthecreditor.   @ ProtectingConfidentiality  W    [6]Thesubstantialrelationshipstandardisemployedmostfrequentlytoprotectthe *z confidentialinformationoftheformerclient.Asubsequentmatterissubstantiallyrelatedtoan c earliermatterifthereisasubstantialriskthatthesubsequentrepresentationwillinvolvetheuse L ofconfidentialinformationoftheformerclientinviolationoftherestrictions of bԀtheseRulesand 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(#' confidentialclientinformationitself of Ԁ or B#X%XX2X%#2X%XXX% confidentialinformationconcerningthesecondclient. )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    mattersfactually EԀ facts #X%XX2X%#2X%XXX%Ԁarenotsubstantiallyrelated.Alawyermightalsohavelearnedaformer n  clientspreferredapproachtobargaininginsettlementdiscussionsornegotiatingbusinesspoints W  inatransaction,willingnessorunwillingnesstobedeposedbyanadversary,andfinancialability @ towithstandextendedlitigationorcontractnegotiations.Onlywhensuchinformationwillbe )y directlyinissueorofunusualvalueinthesubsequentmatterwillitbeindependentlyrelevantin b assessingasubstantialrelationship. K    @ LawyersMovingBetweenFirms   o  [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%#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 whileatthesameaffordingtheparties  tothedisputetheprotectionsofRule2.4 8.     _DEFINITIONAL_ԀCROSSREFERENCES s   ConsentsinWritingSeeRule1.0(b) F  ConsultationSeeRule1.0(c) /  FirmSeeRule1.0(d) h  KnowinglyandKnownSeeRule1.0(f)  Q  Materialand MateriallySeeRule1.0(g)  :  SubstantiallySeeRule1.0(l) !#    COMMITTEENOTES  #"  ComparisonToCurrentTennesseeEthicsRules x% $    Paragraph(a):Thereisnocounterparttoparagraph(a)intheDisciplinaryRules,butitis K'"& consistentwiththeholdingsinTennesseeFormalEthicsOpinions81F5,81F9,84F65,and 4(#' 86F104. )m$(   Paragraph(b):Thereisnocounterparttoparagraph(b)intheDisciplinaryRules,butitis *?&* 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%D#CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges   Made2X%XXX%    #X%XX2X%9#   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%S#2X%XXX%   *Y%)     PROPOSEDRULE1.10  IMPUTEDDISQUALIFICATION:GENERALRULE    nc#X%XX2X%#PX%XXX%(a)Exceptaspermittedbyparagraph s Ԁ_(c) , G#X%XXPX%#PX%XXX%_Ԁ#X%XXPX%# PX%XXX%or(c),alawyerassociatedwithotherlawyersinafirm m shallnotrepresentapersonifanylawyerassociatedwiththefirmispersonallyprohibitedfrom V representingtheperson,#X%XXPX%# PX%XXX%Ԁ#X%XXPX%# PX%XXX%whilelawyersareassociatedinafirm,noneofthemshallknowingly ?  representaclientwhenanyoneofthempracticingalonewouldbeprohibitedfromdoingsoM#X%XXPX%# PX%XXX%Ԁby ( x Rules1.7,1.8(c),1.9(a),1.9(b),or2.2.#X%XXPX%#2X%XXX%  a (b)Whenalawyerhasterminatedanassociationwithafirm,thefirmisnotprohibitedfrom  3  thereafterrepresentingapersonwithinterestsmateriallyadversetothoseofaclientrepresented    bytheformerlyassociatedlawyerandnotcurrentlyrepresentedbythefirm,unless:   0  (1)thematteristhesameorsubstantiallyrelatedtothatinwhichtheformerlyassociated   lawyerrepresentedtheclient;andp (#(# 0   (#(#   (2)anylawyerremaininginthefirmhasinformationprotectedbyRules1.6and1.9(c) B   thatismaterialtothematter. +{   (c)Ifalawyerispersonallydisqualifiedfromrepresentingapersonwithinterestsadversetoa M clientofalawfirmwithwhichthelawyerwasformerlyassociated,otherlawyerscurrently 6 associatedinafirmwiththepersonallydisqualifiedlawyermaynonethelessrepresenttheperson  ifboththepersonallydisqualifiedlawyerandthelawyerswhowillrepresentthepersonon  behalfofthefirmactreasonablyto:    (1)identifythatthepersonallydisqualifiedlawyerisprohibitedfromparticipatingin s   therepresentationofthecurrentclient;and \ Ѐ E   (2)determinethatnolawyerrepresentingthecurrentclienthasacquiredanyinformation .~   fromthepersonallydisqualifiedlawyerthatismaterialtothecurrentmatterandis g   protectedbyRule1.9(c);and  P   (3)promptlyimplementscreeningprocedurestoeffectivelypreventtheflow  !"    ofinformationaboutthematterbetweenthepersonallydisqualifiedlawyer  " !   andtheotherlawyersinthefirm;and #"   (4)advisetheformerclientinwritingofthecircumstanceswhichwarrantedthe  v% $   implementationofthescreeningproceduresrequiredbythisruleandtheactions  _&!%   whichhavebeentakentocomplywiththisRule. H'"& (d)Adisqualificationprescribedbythisrulemaybewaivedbytheaffectedclientorformer )j$( clientundertheconditionsstatedinRule1.7. *S%)    COMMENT  +%'+ Ї Definitionof"Firm"   &  [1]ForpurposesoftheRulesofProfessionalConduct,theterm"firm"includeslawyers  inaprivatefirm,andlawyersinthelegaldepartmentofacorporationorotherorganization,orin l alegalservicesorganization.SeeRule1.0(d)(defining Firmor LawFirm).Whethertwoor U morelawyersconstituteafirmwithinthisdefinitioncandependonthespecificfacts.For >  example,twopractitionerswhoshareofficespaceandoccasionallyconsultorassisteachother ' w ordinarilywouldnotberegardedasconstitutingafirm.However,iftheypresentthemselvesto  ` thepublicinawaysuggestingthattheyareafirmorconductthemselvesasafirm,theyshould  I beregardedasafirmforthepurposesoftheRules.Thetermsofanyformalagreementbetween  2  associatedlawyersarerelevantindeterminingwhethertheyareafirm,asisthefactthatthey    havemutualaccesstoinformationconcerningtheclientstheyserve.Furthermore,itisrelevant   indoubtfulcasestoconsidertheunderlyingpurposeoftheRulethatisinvolved.Agroupof   lawyerscouldberegardedasafirmforpurposesoftherulethatthesamelawyershouldnot   representopposingpartiesinlitigation,whileitmightnotbesoregardedforpurposesoftherule o  thatinformationacquiredbyonelawyerisattributedtotheother. X    [2]Withrespecttothelawdepartmentofanorganization,thereisordinarilynoquestion *z thatthemembersofthedepartmentconstituteafirmwithinthemeaningoftheRulesof c ProfessionalConduct.However,therecanbeuncertaintyastotheidentityoftheclient.For L example,itmaynotbeclearwhetherthelawdepartmentofacorporationrepresentsasubsidiary 5 oranaffiliatedcorporation,aswellasthecorporationbywhichthemembersofthedepartment  aredirectlyemployed.Asimilarquestioncanariseconcerninganunincorporatedassociation  anditslocalaffiliates.    [3]Similarquestionscanalsoarisewithrespecttolawyersinlegalaid.Lawyers r employedinthesameunitofalegalserviceorganizationconstituteafirm,butnotnecessarily [ thoseemployedinseparateunits.Asinthecaseofindependentpractitioners,whetherthe D lawyersshouldbetreatedasassociatedwitheachothercandependontheparticularrulethatis -} involved,andonthespecificfactsofthesituation. f     PrinciplesofImputedDisqualification   8 e2  [4]Theruleofimputeddisqualificationstatedinparagraph(a)recognizesthecommunity " ! ofinterestandsharedloyaltypresumedtoexistamonglawyerswhoareassociatedinlawfirm. #" Paragraph(a)operatesonlyamongthelawyerscurrentlyassociatedinafirm.Whenalawyer $# movesfromonefirmtoanother,thesituationisgovernedbyparagraphs(b)and(c). v% $    LawyersMovingBetweenFirms  I'"& 4  [5]Whenalawyerwhoisassociatedinafirmleavesthefirm,thequestionofwhethera )l$( lawyershouldundertakerepresentationadversetoclientsoftheformerfirmismore *U%) complicated.Thereareseveralcompetingconsiderations.First,theclientpreviouslyrepresented *>&* bytheformerfirmmustbereasonablyassuredthattheprincipleofloyaltytotheclientisnot +''+ compromisedandthatconfidentialinformationrelatedtotherepresentationwillnotbeusedto  theclientsdisadvantage.Second,theruleshouldnotbecastsobroadlyastoprecludeother  personsfromhavingreasonablechoiceoflegalcounsel.Third,theruleshouldnotunreasonably  hamperlawyersfromformingnewassociationsandtakingonnewclientsafterhavinglefta k previousassociation.Inthisconnection,itshouldberecognizedthattodaymanylawyers T practiceinfirms,thatmanylawyerstosomedegreelimittheirpracticetoonefieldoranother, =  andthatmanymovefromoneassociationtoanotherseveraltimesintheircareers.Iftheconcept & v ofimputationwereappliedwithunqualifiedrigor,theresultwouldberadicalcurtailmentofthe  _ opportunityoflawyerstomovefromonepracticesettingtoanotherandoftheopportunityof  H clientstochangecounsel.  1  f    [6]Reconciliationofthesecompetingprinciplesinthepasthasbeenattemptedundertwo   rubrics.Oneapproachhasbeentoseekperserulesofdisqualification.Forexample,ithasbeen   heldthatapartnerinalawfirmisconclusivelypresumedtohaveaccesstoallconfidences   concerningallclientsofthefirm.Thispresumptionmightproperlybeappliedinsome n  circumstances,especiallywheretheclienthasbeenextensivelyrepresented,butmaybe W  unrealisticwheretheclientwasrepresentedonlyforlimitedpurposes.Furthermore,sucharigid @ ruleexaggeratesthedifferencebetweenapartnerandanassociateinmodernlawfirms. )y   [7]Theotherrubricformerlyusedfordealingwithdisqualificationistheappearanceof K improprietyproscribedinCanon9oftheABAModelCodeofProfessionalResponsibility.This 4 rubrichasatwofoldproblem.First,theappearanceofimproprietycanbetakentoincludeany  newclient-lawyerrelationshipthatmightmakeaformerclientfeelanxious.Ifthatmeaningwere  adopted,disqualificationwouldbecomelittlemorethanaquestionofsubjectivejudgmentbythe  formerclient.Second,since"impropriety"isundefined,theterm"appearanceofimpropriety"is  question-begging.Itthereforehastoberecognizedthattheproblemofdisqualificationcannotbe q properlyresolvedeitherbysimpleanalogytoalawyerpracticingaloneorbytheverygeneral Z conceptofappearanceofimpropriety. C  g   [f  8 g f  g 6f   g ]Paragraphs(a)and(b)governthevicariousdisqualificationofalawfirminthe e situationinwhichalawyerleavesthefirmandcontinuesorundertakestherepresentationofa N clientpreviouslyrepresentedbythefirm,thefirmisnolongerrepresentingtheclientand  7 lawyerswhohaveremainedinthefirmareaskedtoundertakearepresentationmaterially !   adversetothefirmsformerclient.Ifthenewmatterissubstantiallyrelatedtoamatterinwhich " ! thefirmpreviouslyrepresentedtheclient,thefirm,absenttheformerclientsconsent,willbe #" precludedbyparagraph(a)fromundertakingtherepresentationifanylawyerremaininginthe $# firmwouldbeprecludedbyRule1.9(a)fromdoingsobecausethelawyerhadparticipatedinthe t% $ clientspriorrepresentation.Alternatively,paragraph(b)precludesthefirmfromundertaking ]&!% therepresentationifanylawyerremaininginthefirmhasinformationprotectedbyRules1.6and F'"& 1.9(c)thatismaterialtothematter.If,ontheotherhand,noremaininglawyerparticipatedin /(#' theclientsrepresentationorpossessedconfidentialinformation,thefirmispermittedto )h$( undertaketherepresentationeventhoughitismateriallyadversetotheformerclientina *Q%) substantiallyrelatedmatter. *:&*  +#'+   [f  9 g f  g 7f   g ]Paragraph(c)addressesthesituationinwhichalawyerleavesonelawfirmand  joinsanotherfirmwhichisrepresentingaclientwithinterestsmateriallyadversetoaclientof  thenewlawyersformerfirm.Thenewlawyermaybepersonallydisqualifiedfrom  participatingintherepresentationofsomeofthenewfirmsclientsbecauseofhisprior k representationoforacquisitionofconfidentialinformationaboutclientsofhisorherformerlaw T firm.Thispersonaldisqualificationwillnotbeimputedtootherlawyersinthepersonally =  disqualifiedlawyersnewfirmiftheyactreasonablytoprotecttheconfidentialityinterestsofthe & v personbeingrepresentedbythepersonallydisqualifiedlawyersformerfirm.  _   [f  10 g f  g 8f   g ]Paragraph(c)setsforththemeasuresthatmustbetakeninorderprotectthe  1  confidentialityinterestsoftheclientbeingrepresentedbythepersonallydisqualifiedlawyers    formerfirm.Whetherafirmsscreeningproceduresareeffectivetopreventtheflowof   informationaboutthematterbetweenthepersonallydisqualifiedlawyerandtheotherlawyersin   thefirmisaquestionoffact.Factorstobeconsideredinclude:awrittenaffirmationbythe   personallydisqualifiedlawyerandthelawyersandfirmpersonnelhandlingthematterin n  questionthattheyareawareofandwillabidebythescreeningproceduresimplementedbythe W  firm,thestructuralorganizationofthelawfirmoroffice,thelikelihoodofcontactbetweenthe @ personallydisqualifiedlawyerandthelawyershandlingthematterinquestion,andtheexistence )y offirmrulesandafilingsystemwhichpreventsunauthorizedaccesstofileswithrespecttothe b matterinquestion.AlthoughthisRuledoesnotrequirethatthepersonallydisqualifiedlawyerbe K prohibitedfromsharinginanyfeegeneratedbytherepresentationinquestion,suchaprohibition 4 canbeconsideredindeterminingtheeffectivenessofthescreeningproceduresemployedbythe  firm.Thequestiontobeaskedineachcaseiswhetherthescreeningmechanismeffectively  reducestoanacceptablelevelthepotentialformisuseofinformationrelatedtothe  representationofthepersonallydisqualifiedlawyersformerclient.    [f  11 g f  g 9f   g ]Wherealawyerhasjoinedaprivatefirmafterhavingrepresentedthegovernment, Z thesituationisgovernedbyRule1.11(a)and(b).Wherealawyerrepresentsthegovernment C afterhavingservedprivateclients,thesituationisgovernedbyRule1.11(c)(1).Theindividual ,| lawyerinvolvedisboundbytheRulesgenerally,includingRules1.6,1.7and1.9(c). e    _DEFINITIONAL_ԀCROSSREFERENCES  7  V Firmand LawFirmSeeRule1.0(d) " !  Materialand MateriallySeeRule1.0(g) #"  ReasonablySeeRule1.0(_i_) $#  SubstantiallySeeRule1.0(l) u% $     COMMITTEENOTES  H'"& X ComparisonToCurrentTennesseeEthicsRules  )k$(     Paragraph(a):Thevicariousdisqualificationcalledforbyparagraph(a)whenalawyerin *>&* thefirmispersonallydisqualifiedbyRules1.7,1.8(c),and2.2isconsistentwithDR5105(D). +''+ Thevicariousdisqualificationcalledforbyparagraph(a)whenalawyerinthefirmispersonally  disqualifiedbyRule1.9isconsistentwiththeTennesseeethicsopinionscitedintheCommittee  NotestoProposedRule1.9.    Paragraph(b):Thereisnocounterparttoparagraph(b)intheDisciplinaryRules. T   Paragraph(c):Paragraph(c),readinconjunctionwithRule1.9(b),isintendedtocodify & v TennesseeFormalEthicsOpinion89F118(whichpermitstheuseofscreeningproceduresina  _ lawfirmthathashiredalawyerwhohadpreviouslybeenassociatedwithalawfirmandis  H personallydisqualifiedfromrepresentinginterestsadversetoaclientofhisorherformerfirm)  1    Paragraph(d):DR5105(D)doesnotspecificallypermitaclienttoconsenttoa   representationbyalawyerwhootherwisewouldbevicariouslydisqualifiedfromrepresentinga   client.    ComparisonToABAModelRules  W    Paragraph(a):ExceptforthecrossreferencetoParagraph(c),Paragraph(a)isidentical *z toABAModelRule1.10(a). c     Paragraph(b):Paragraph(b)isidenticaltoABAModelRule1.10(b). 5     Paragraph(c):ThereisnocounterparttoParagraph(c)intheABAModelRules.    Paragraph(d):Paragraph(d)isf  similarf  g ԀtoABAModelRule1.10(g c),withtheclarifying  additionof orformerclientf  g .f   g  r  ChangesMadeto1997CommitteePreliminaryDraftInResponsetoComments  D   Paragraph(C)wasdeletedandParagraph(B)hasbeenrevisedsothatthisportionofthe g ProposedRulewillconformtoModelRule1.10.Theeffectofthechangeistoreversethe  P Committeespositionwithrespecttotheappropriatenessofalawfirmusingscreening  9 procedureswhenalawyerleavesthefirm,someofthefirmsclientsgoalong,andthefirmnow !"  wantstorepresentanewclientwithinterestsmateriallyadversetoitsformerclientina " ! substantiallyrelatedmatter.ModelRule1.10(b)permitssuchrepresentationonlyifnolawyer #" stillassociatedwiththefirmpossessesconfidentialinformationthatismaterialtothematter.If $# anylawyerstillwiththefirmpossessedsuchconfidentialinformation,thefirmcouldnotprevent v% $ thedisqualificationbyscreeningthelawyer.Paragraph(C)wouldhavepermittedthelawfirm _&!% toundertaketherepresentationadversetoitsformerclientifthefirmadequatelyscreenedthe H'"& lawyerwhopossessedtheconfidentialinformationfromparticipationinthematter.Upon 1(#' reconsideration,theCommitteehasconcludedthatalawfirmsdutyofloyaltytoitsformer )j$( clientsshouldprecludetherepresentationofanewclientwhenanylawyerstillassociatedwith *S%) thefirmpossessesconfidentialinformationthatismaterialtothematter. *<&*  +%'+ #X%XX2X%# CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges  Made 2X%XXX%    1.TheCommitteehasrevisedParagraphAsoitwillconformtotheABAModelRule. m Nochangeinsubstanceisintended. V #X%XX2X%h#X%XXX%  2.TheBoardofProfessionalResponsibilitysuggeststhatProposedRule1.10bereplaced ( x withthesubstanceofDR5105(D).TheCommitteeopposesthisrecommendationasrelatesto  a paragraph(a)becauseitisinconsistentwiththepolicyjudgmentreflectedinParagraph(a)that  J thereshouldbenovicariousdisqualificationwhenalawyerisdisqualifiedfromrepresentinga  3  clientbyRules1.8(_i_)or3.7(a).AsParagraph(a)trackstheModelRule,whichhasbeenwidely    adopted,italsopromotesuniformityamongstateethicsrules.TheCommitteealsoopposesthe   deletionofParagraph(b)becauseitaddressesanissuenotaddressedbyourcurrentRulei.e.,   theresponsibilitiesofalawfirmtoitsclientwhenalawyerinthefirmleavesandtheclient   dischargesthefirmandretainstheserviceofthedepartinglawyer.Thisissuewillnotgoaway p  becausetheRulesdonotaddressit.Finally,withrespecttoParagraph(c),whichcodifiesthe Y  holdinginFormalEthicsOpinion89F118,theCommitteebelievesthatscreeningisofsuch B importancethatitshouldbeaddressedintheRulesratherthaninanonbindingethicsopinion. +{   3.Onitsownmotion,theCommitteerecommendsthedeletionofComments[6]and[7] M becausetheyarenotrelevanttoaninterpretationoftherule.Aswillbeexplainedbelow, 6 however,theCommitteeconcurswiththecriticismleviedinComment[7]attheuseof   appearanceofimproprietyasastandardofconductfortheviolationofwhichalawyercanbe  subjecttoprofessionaldiscipline.    4.InlightoftheCourtsdecisionin_Clinard_Ԁv.Blackwood,46_S.W._Ԁ3d177(Tenn.2001), s theCommitteecarefullyreconsidereditsproposaltopermitnonconsensualscreeningtoprevent \ thevicariousdisqualificationofafirmincasesinwhichalawyermovesfromonefirmto E anotherandthelawyerjoiningthefirmwouldbepersonallydisqualifiedbecauseofhisorher .~ involvementintheformerfirmsrepresentationofaclient.Inlightofthisreview,the g Committeerespectfully,butforcefully,urgestheCourttoapprovescreeningwherethe  P personallydisqualifiedlawyerandtheotherlawyerswithwhomthepersonallydisqualified  9 lawyerpracticescomplywiththerequirementsofParagraph(c).Thisreflectsthejudgmentof !"  theCommitteethatscreeningshouldbepermittedevenonfactssuchasthoseofthe_Clinard_ " ! case,solongasthelawyershavecompliedwithParagraph(c).Giventhesafeguardsafforded #" theformerclientbyParagraph(c),inparticulartherequirementthattheformerclientbe $# notifiedofthescreeningtheCommitteedoesnotbelievethatthereiseitheranappearanceof v% $ improprietyoramaterialriskofimpropriety.Tothecontrary,theimplementationofascreenin _&!% compliancewithParagraph(c)evidencesastrongrespectforthelegitimateinterestsofthe H'"& formerclient.Unlikethevicariousdisqualificationthatwouldotherwiseberequired,italso 1(#' accommodatestheveryimportantinterestoftheclientsofthelawyersnewfirminbeingableto )j$( berepresentedbytheircounselofchoice.TheCommitteewouldalsospecificallycallthe *S%) Courtsattentiontotherequirementthatthescreenbe effective,anobjectivestandardto *<&* whichtheCourtmayreferasitassessestheproprietyofscreeninginindividualcases.The +%'+ CommitteebelievesitwouldbepreferablefortheCourttofocusontheeffectivenessofthe  screenratherthantheappearanceofimpropriety.    Thus,theCommitteehasspecificallyandconsciouslychosennottomodifyitsproposal k toprecludescreeningincertaincasesbecauseofan appearanceofimpropriety.Apartfrom T thequestionofwhethersuchastandardshouldbeusedinconnectionwithdisqualification =  motions,theCommitteeisparticularlyconcernedaboutsubjectinglawyerstoprofessional & v disciplineforappearancesofimpropriety.TheABAModelRulesexplicitlyrejectedtheuseof  _  appearanceofimproprietyasabasisforimposingdisciplineonthegroundsthatitisquestion  H beggingandaffordslawyersinsufficientguidanceastotheconductforwhichtheycanbe  1  disciplined.EveniftheCourtweretoreaffirmitsdecisionin_Clinard_Ԁtouse appearanceof    improprietyasastandardforrulingondisqualificationmotions,theCommitteedoesnot   believethatitshouldbeincorporatedintotheRulesofProfessionalConductthatareusedasthe   basisforimposinglawyerdiscipline.     If,however,theCourtconcludesthattheRulesofProfessionalConductshouldpreclude W  theuseofscreeningonfactssimilartothoseof_Clinard_,theCommitteerecommendsthatthisbe @ donebycraftinganarrowexceptionthatwouldprecludetheuseofascreenwhenthelawyer )y whohadswitchedfirmshadbeensubstantiallyinvolvedinanadjudicativeproceedingandthe b lawyersnewfirmwasrepresentingtheadversepartyinthatproceeding.Thiscouldbedoneby K addinganewParagraph(d)asfollowsandreletteringexistingParagraph(d)as(e). 4 0  #X%XXX%i# (#(#    ` (d)Theproceduresinparagraph(c)maynotbeemployedwithouttheconsentof    theclientofthepersonallydisqualifiedlawyersformerfirmifthepersonally   0  disqualifiedlawyerwassubstantiallyinvolvedintheformerfirmsrepresentationofthe @"   clientinconnectionwithapendingadjudicativeproceedinginwhichthelawyerscurrent q firmrepresentsaclientdirectlyadversetotheformerfirmsclientintheproceeding.Z(#(# 2X%XXX%  C f  g    PROPOSEDRULE1.11  SUCCESSIVEGOVERNMENTANDPRIVATEEMPLOYMENT    a=%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) ÐԀ (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 +&'+ _officer_ԀorarbitratormaynegotiateforprivateemploymentaspermittedbyRule1.12(b)  andsubjecttotheconditionsstatedinRule1.12( B 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 v  [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%XXdXXdA  [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%# CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges    Made 2X%XXX%   #X%XX2X%g#f    ConsistentwithitsrecommendationwithrespecttoProposedRule1.10,theBoardof   ProfessionalResponsibilityhasaskedtheCourttodeletethatportionofProposedRule1.11that u  specifiesthecircumstancesinwhichscreeningcanbeusedtoavoidthevicarious ^  disqualificationoftheformergovernmentlawyersnewlawfirm.Again,theCommittee G believesthatscreeningshouldbeaddressedintheRule,ratherthaninanethicsopinion,andthat 0 theRule_should_Ԁspecifythecircumstancesinwhichscreeningwillbepermitted.Also,such i departurefromthatABAModelRule,whichasbeenwidelyadopted,isinconsistentwiththe R Committeesgoalofpromotinguniformityamongstateethicsrules.  ; _    PROPOSEDRULE1.12  FORMERJUDGEORARBITRATOR   n erz=%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 8  [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   V 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    er(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  resign ;Ԁ withdraw lԀinaccordancewithRule1.16andmaymakesuchdisclosuresofinformation !"  relatingtotheorganizationsrepresentationonlytotheextentpermittedtodosobyRules1.6 " ! and4.1. #" (d)Indealingwithanorganization'sdirectors,officers,employees,members,shareholdersor v% $ otherconstituents,alawyershallexplaintheidentityoftheclientwhenitisorbecomesapparent _&!% thattheorganizationsinterestsareadversetothoseoftheconstituentswithwhomthelawyeris H'"& dealing. 1(#' (e)Alawyerrepresentinganorganizationmayalsorepresentanyofitsdirectors,officers, *S%) employees,members,shareholdersorotherconstituents,subjecttotheprovisionsofRule1.7 *<&* and2.2.Iftheorganization'sconsenttothedualrepresentationisrequiredbyRule1.7or2.2, +%'+ _theconsentshallbegivenbyanappropriateofficialoftheorganizationotherthantheindividual  whoistoberepresentedorbytheshareholders.     COMMENT k  H   TheEntityastheClient  >    [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    H  [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 Z  [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  p KnowsSeeRule1.0(f)   ReasonablySeeRule1.0(k)   SubstantialSeeRule1.0(l)     COMMITTEENOTES \ ComparisonToCurrentTennesseeEthicsRules  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)topastaswellasfuturemisconductofaconstituent_and +,'+ 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%#  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    ,""(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%i"#2X%XXX% *=&* guardianisactingadverselytotheward'sinterest,thelawyermayhaveanobligationtoprevent   orrectifytheguardian'smisconduct.f  g f  g Seef  g f  g ԀRule1.2(f  D g f  g df   g ).     DisclosureoftheClient'sCondition  k h3  [5]Rulesofprocedureinlitigationgenerallyprovidethatminorsorpersonssuffering >  mentaldisabilityshallberepresentedbyaguardianornextfriendiftheydonothaveageneral ' w guardian.However,disclosureoftheclient'sdisabilitycanadverselyaffecttheclient'sinterests.  ` Forexample,raisingthequestionofdisabilitycould,insomecircumstances,leadtoproceedings  I forinvoluntarycommitment.Thelawyer'spositioninsuchcasesisanunavoidablydifficultone.  2  Thelawyermayseekguidancefromanappropriatediagnostician.      EmergencyLegalAssistance   h6  [6]f  Inanemergencywhere g f  g Iff   g Ԁthehealth,safetyorfinancialinterestofapersonundera r  disabilityisthreatenedwithimminentandirreparableharm,alawyermaytakelegalactionon [  behalfofsuchapersoneventhoughthepersonisunabletoestablishaclientlawyerrelationship D ortomakeorexpressconsideredjudgmentsaboutthematter,whenthedisabledpersonor -} anotheractingingoodfaithonthepersonsbehalfhasconsultedthelawyer.Eveninsuchf  an f emergency g f  g asituationf   g ,however,thelawyershouldnotactunlessthelawyerreasonablybelieves O thatthepersonhasnootherlawyer,agentorotherrepresentativeavailable.Thelawyershould 8 takelegalactiononbehalfofthedisabledpersononlytotheextentreasonablynecessaryto ! maintainthestatusquoorotherwiseavoidimminentandirreparableharm.Alawyerwho   undertakestorepresentapersoninsuchanexigentsituationhasthesamedutiesunderthese  Rulesasthelawyerwouldwithrespecttoaclient.    [7]Alawyerwhoactsonbehalfofadisabledpersonf  inanemergency g f  g threatenedwith ^ imminentandf  g f  g f  g irreparableharmf   g Ԁshouldkeeptheconfidencesofthedisabledpersonasifdealing G withaclient,disclosingthemonlytotheextentnecessarytoaccomplishtheintendedprotective 0 action.Thelawyershoulddisclosetoanytribunalinvolvedandtoanyothercounselinvolved i thenatureofhisorherrelationshipwiththedisabledperson.Thelawyershouldtakestepsto  R regularizetherelationshiporimplementotherprotectivesolutionsassoonaspossible.Normally,  ; alawyerwouldnotseekcompensationforsuchf  Ԁemergency g Ԁactionstakenonbehalfofadisabled !$  person. " !    _DEFINITIONAL_ԀCROSSREFERENCES $#  @ ReasonablySeeRule1.0(_i_) b&!%  ReasonablyBelievesSeeRule1.0(j) K'"&    COMMITTEENOTES  )m$( A ComparisonToCurrentTennesseeEthicsRules  *@&*  +,'+   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%u1# CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges ^ Made 2X%XXX% H #X%XX2X%/L#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    rWW(a)Alawyershallholdpropertyandfundsofclientsorthirdpersonsthatareinalawyer's m possessioninconnectionwitharepresentationseparatefromthelawyer'sownpropertyand V funds. ?  0  (1)Fundsbelongingtoclientsorthirdpersonsshallbekeptinaseparateaccount  a maintainedinaninsureddepositoryinstitutionwhichislocatedinthestatewherethe  J lawyersofficeissituated(orelsewherewiththeconsentoftheclientorthirdperson)  3  andwhichparticipatesintheoverdraftnotificationprogramasrequiredbySupreme    CourtRule9. Alawyermaydepositthelawyersownfundsinsuchanaccountforthe   solepurposeofpayingbankservicechargesonthataccount,butc[ onlyinanamount   necessaryforthat_purpose./\ _ (#(#   0 ` (_i_)Exceptasprovidedbysubparagraph(a)(1)(ii)Ԁ orparagraph(c)G] ,interestearned Y  onaccountsinwhichthefundsofclientsaredepositedlessanydeductionfor B servicecharges,feesofthedepositoryinstitution,andintangibletaxescollected +{ withrespecttothedepositedfundsshallbelongtotheclientswhosefundsare d depositedandthelawyershallhavenorightorclaimtosuchinterest.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.Ԁ Ifadisputearisesconcerningtheir    respectiveinterests,theportionindisputeshallbekeptseparatebythelawyeruntilthedisputeis k resolved .Xi  T    COMMENT & v  fj  [1]Alawyershouldholdpropertyofotherswiththecarerequiredofaprofessional  I fiduciary.Securitiesshouldbekeptinasafedepositbox,exceptwhensomeotherformof  2  safekeepingiswarrantedbyspecialcircumstances.Allproperty whichisthepropertyk ofclients    orthirdpersonsshouldbekeptseparatefromthelawyer'sbusinessandpersonalpropertyand,if   monies,inoneormoretrustaccounts.Separatetrustaccountsmaybewarrantedwhen   administeringestatemoniesoractinginsimilarfiduciarycapacities.     [2]Lawyersoftenreceivefundsfromthirdpartiesfromwhichthelawyer'sfeewillbe X  paid.Ifthereisriskthattheclientmaydivertthefundswithoutpayingthefee,thelawyerisnot A requiredtoremittheportionfromwhichthefeeistobepaid.However,alawyermaynothold *z fundstocoerceaclientintoacceptingthelawyer'scontentioninadisputewiththecliento.The c disputedportionofthefundsshouldbekeptintrustandthelawyershouldsuggestmeansfor L promptresolutionofthedispute,suchasarbitration.Theundisputedportionofthefundsshallbe 5 promptlydistributed.    [3]Thirdparties,suchasaclient'screditors,mayhavejustclaimsagainstfundsorother  propertyinalawyer'scustody.Alawyermayhaveadutyunderapplicablelawtoprotectsuch  third-partyclaimsagainstwrongfulinterferencebytheclient,andaccordinglymayrefuseto r surrenderthepropertytotheclient.However,alawyershouldnotunilaterallyassumeto [ arbitrateadisputebetweentheclientandthethirdparty.Ifnotinconsistentwiththeinterestsof D theclient,thelawyermayfileaninterpleaderactionconcerningfundsindisputebetweenthe -} clientandathirdparty. f   [4]TheobligationsofalawyerunderthisRuleareindependentofthosearisingfrom  8 activityotherthanrenderinglegalservices.Forexample,alawyerwhoservesasanescrow !!  agentisgovernedbytheapplicablelawrelatingtofiduciarieseventhoughthelawyerdoesnot " ! renderlegalservicesinthetransaction. #" B.` hp x (#XB  [5]Incertaincircumstances,Tennesseelawgoverningabandonedpropertymayapplyto u% $ moniesinlawyertrustaccountsorotherpropertyleftinthehandsoflawyersandmaygovernits ^&!% disposition.SeeTenn.CodeAnn.66-29-101through204(1993andSupp.1999)(Uniform G'"& DispositionofUnclaimedPropertyAct). 0(#'    _DEFINITIONAL_ԀCROSSREFERENCES *R%)  vӀ *<&*   None. +%'+    COMMITTEENOTES   w  ComparisonToCurrentTennesseeEthicsRules     Paragraph(a): DR9-102(A)providesthat"fundsofclients"aretobekeptinan V identifiablebankaccountinthestateinwhichthelawyer'sofficeissituated.DR9-102(B)(2) B  providesthatalawyershall"f  [_i]dentify_f  g Ԁandlabelsecuritiesandpropertiesofaclient...andplace + { themin...safekeeping...."DR9-102(B)(3)requiresthatalawyer"f  g [_m]aintain_f  g Ԁcomplete  d recordsofallfunds,securities,andotherpropertiesofaclient."ProposedRule1.15(a)extends  M theserequirementstopropertyofathirdpersonthatisinthelawyer'spossessioninconnection  6  withtherepresentation.ThesecondsentenceinParagraph(a)(1)(2)tracksDR9102(C)(2)(d).      Paragraph(a)(1)(ii)doesnotcontainthedetailedadministrativeprovisionscontainedin   DR9-102(C)(2)governingthe_IOLTA_.TheCommitteedeterminedthatthesedetailsweremore   properlyincludedinaseparateSupremeCourtRuledevotedtothispurpose.TheCommittee s  submitsthataSupremeCourtRulethatwouldbesubstantivelyidenticaltotheadministrative \  requirementsofDR9-102wouldprovideasfollows: E   @@ d PROPOSEDSUPREMECOURTRULE___ g @@. . dINTERESTONLAWYERTRUSTACCOUNTS  Q >~  TennesseeSupremeCourtRule8#X%XX2X%W#(TennesseeRulesofProfessionalConduct)2X%XXX%Ԁrequires $   TennesseelawyerstoparticipateintheInterestonLawyersTrustAccount(_IOLTA_)     program,absentnoticetotheChiefJusticeoftheSupremeCourtofTennesseeandthe    BoardofProfessionalResponsibilityoftheSupremeCourtofTennessee.    Thefollowingruleshallgovernthemaintenanceandoperationofaccounts  a   (hereinafter _IOLTA_Ԁaccounts)underthisprogram: J 0  0` (#(#(1)Lawyersorlawfirmsdepositingclientfundsinan_IOLTA_Ԁaccountshall l directthedepositoryinstitution: U` (#` (#    `  (_i_)Toremitinterest,netanyservicechargesorfees,ascomputedin !'     `  accordancewiththeinstitutionsstandardaccountingpractice,atleast "!    `  quarterly,totheTennesseeBarFoundationfordepositinitsInterest #"    `  onLawyersTrustAccountsprogram(_IOLTA_);and $# 0   ` 0 (#(#(ii)TotransmitwitheachremittancetotheTennesseeBarFoundationa d&!% statementshowingthenameofthelawyerorlawfirmonwhoseaccount M'"& theremittanceissent,theaccountnumberandtherateofinterestapplied, 6(#' withacopyofsuchstatementtobetransmittedtothelawyerorthelaw )o$( firm.*X%) (# (#   *A&* 0  0` (#(#(2)AllinteresttransmittedtotheTennesseeBarFoundationshallbedistributed   bythatentityforthefollowingpurposes:` (#` (#    `  (_i_)Toprovidelegalassistancetothepoor; k 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#(ii)Toprovidestudentloans,grants,andscholarshipstodeservinglaw =  students;& v (# (# 0   `  (iii)Toimprovetheadministrationofjustice;and H(#(# 0  0` (#(#0 ` (#` (#(iv)Forsuchotherprogramsforthebenefitofthepublicasare    specificallyapprovedbytheSupremeCourtoftheStateofTennessee   fromtimetotime.  (# (# 0  0` (#(#(3)TheregistrationrequiredbyRule9,Section20.5,oftheRulesoftheSupreme n  Courtshallalsoincludean_IOLTA_Ԁcompliancestatement,whichshallsetforththe W  bankorbankswherethelawyerorthelawfirmmaintainssuchdepository @ account.Suchcompliancestatementshallfurtherdesignatetheaccountnumber )y assignedbyanysuchbanktosuchaccount.The_IOLTA_Ԁcompliancestatement b shalldirectsuchbankorbankstoremitinterestthereonasrequiredinRule1.15 K oftheRulesofProfessionalConduct,TennesseeSupremeCourtRule8.4` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#(4)Alawyerwhodoesnotmaintainsuchdepositoryaccountfordepositof  clientsfundsasreferencedaboveshalladvisetheBoardofProfessional  ResponsibilityoftheStateofTennesseewhenfilingtheregistrationstatement  and_IOLTA_Ԁcompliancestatementasreferencedaboveherein,thatsuchlawyer q doesnotmaintain,andthereasonswhysuchlawyerdoesnotmaintainsucha Z pooleddepositoryaccount.Acopyofsuchdeclinationtoparticipateinthe C _IOLTA_Ԁprogram,orstatementthatnosuchpooleddepositoryaccountis ,| maintainedshallbetransmittedtotheTennesseeBarFoundationbytheBoardof e ProfessionalResponsibility.N` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#(5)TheBoardofProfessionalResponsibility,actinginconcertwiththe !   TennesseeBarFoundation,maypromulgatesuchformsandproceduresaswill " ! implementparagraphsthisRuleandRule1.15oftheRulesofProfessional #" Conduct,TennesseeSupremeCourtRule8.$#` (#` (# 6  Paragraph(b):Paragraph(b)issubstantiallysimilartoDR9-102(B)(1),(3)and(4),but ]&!% theCommitteehasaddedaclausemakingitclearthatifthereisadisputebetweentheclientand F'"& thirdperson,thelawyermustkeepthedisputedfundsf  Ԁ g separatef  g Ԁpendingresolutionofthedispute.f  Ԁ g  /(#'   Paragraph(c):Paragraph(c)issimilartoDR9-102(A)(2). *Q%)    ` ComparisonToABAModelRules  +#'+ Ї  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).  k ChangesMadeto1997CommitteePreliminaryDraftInResponsetoComments  >      LanguagefromcurrentDR9102(f  g C)(2)(f  g d)hasbeenaddedtoParagraph(a)(1)(ii).  a   TheCommitteehasdeletedComment[5]thatread:A"client'ssecurityfund"providesa  3  meansthroughthecollectiveeffortsofthebartoreimbursepersonswhohavelostmoneyor    propertyasaresultofdishonestconductofalawyer.Wheresuchafundhasbeenestablished,a   lawyershouldparticipate.ThisCommentisnotneededbecauseTennesseesClientSecurity   Fundisfinancedbyamandatoryassessmentimposedonalllawyers.     AsentencehasbeenaddedtoComment[3]alertinglawyerstothepossibilityoffilingan Y  interpleaderactiontoresolveadisputebetweenthelawyersclientandathirdpartyabouttheir B respectiveentitlementtofundsheldbythelawyer. +{   TheCommitteehasaddedComment[5]asahelpfulreferenceforlawyers. M #X%XX2X%f# CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges  Made 2X%XXX%     #X%XX2X%#  TheCommitteehasdeletedthesecondsentenceinParagraph(c)assurplusageandhas  mademinoreditorialchangestoComments[1]and[2].HelpfullanguageparallelingDR9 u 102(A)(1)hasbeenaddedtoParagraph(a)(1).  ^ 2X%XXX%    PROPOSEDRULE1.16  DECLININGANDTERMINATINGREPRESENTATION    ty̞(a)Exceptasstatedinparagraph(c),alawyershallnotrepresentaclientor,where o representationhascommenced,shallwithdrawfromtherepresentationoftheclientif: X   (1)therepresentationwillresultinaviolationoftheRulesofProfessionalConductor * z   otherlaw;or  c 50 `  ` (#` (# (2)thelawyersphysicalormentalconditionmateriallyimpairsthelawyersabilityto  5  representtheclient;or    (3)thelawyerisdischarged.   ҂  (b)Exceptasstatedinparagraph(c),alawyermaywithdrawfromtherepresentationofaclient r  ifthewithdrawalcanbeaccomplishedwithoutmaterialadverseeffectontheinterestsofthe [  clientorif: D (1)theclientpersistsinacourseofactioninvolvingthelawyer'sservicesthatthelawyer f reasonablybelievesiscriminalorfraudulent; or ̣ O 0 `  ` (#` (# (2)theclienthasusedthelawyer'sservicestoperpetrateacrimeorfraud; or #X%XX2X%#2X%XXX% ! (3)aclientinsistsuponpursuinganobjectiveortakingactionthatthelawyerconsiders  repugnantorimprudent; or #X%XX2X%ͤ#2X%XXX%  0 `  ` (#` (# (4)theclientfailssubstantiallytofulfillanobligationtothelawyerregardingthe ^ lawyer'sservicesandhasbeengivenreasonablewarningthatthelawyerwillwithdraw G unlesstheobligationisfulfilled; or .#X%XX2X%٥#2X%XXX% 0 0 `  ` (#` (# (5)therepresentationwillresultinanunanticipatedandsubstantialfinancialburdenon  R thelawyerorhasbeenrenderedunreasonablydifficultbytheclient; or #X%XX2X%z#2X%XXX%  ; 0 `   ` (#` (# (6)othergoodcauseforwithdrawalexists;or " ! (7)afterconsultationwiththelawyer,theclientconsentsinwritingtothewithdrawalof $# thelawyer. x% $ (c)Whenorderedtodosobyatribunal,alawyershallcontinuerepresentationnotwithstanding J'"& goodcauseforterminatingtherepresentation. 3(#' (d)Uponterminationoftherepresentationofaclient,alawyershalltakestepstotheextent *U%) reasonablypracticabletoprotectaclient'sinterests,including: *>&*  +''+ _  (1)givingreasonablenoticetotheclientaswillallowtimefortheemploymentofother    counsel ,and WԀ ; #X%XX2X%֨#2X%XXX%  M ` (2)promptlysurrenderingpapersandpropertyoftheclientandanyworkproduct k preparedbythelawyerfortheclientandforwhichthelawyerhasbeencompensated; and T   ` (3)promptlysurrenderinganyotherworkproductpreparedbythelawyerfortheclient, & v provided,however,thatthelawyermayretainsuchworkproducttotheextentpermitted  _ byotherlawbutonlyiftheretentionoftheworkproductwillnothaveamaterially  H adverseaffectontheclientwithrespecttothesubjectmatteroftherepresentation; and ԯ#X%XX2X%ܬ#2X%XXX%  1  (4)promptlyrefundingtotheclientanyadvancepaymentforexpenseswhichhavenot   beenincurredbythelawyer;and     (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   clientseekingtodososhouldbegivenafullexplanationoftheconsequences.These  consequencesmayincludeadecisionbytheappointingauthoritythatappointmentofsuccessor  counselisunjustified,thusrequiringtheclienttoproceedwithoutassistanceofcounsel. k   [6]Iftheclientismentallyincompetent,theclientmaylackthelegalcapacityto =  dischargethelawyer,andinanyeventthedischargemaybeseriouslyadversetotheclient's & v interests.Thelawyershouldmakespecialefforttohelptheclientconsidertheconsequencesand,  _ inanextremecase,mayinitiateproceedingsforaconservatorshiporsimilarprotectionofthe  H client.SeeRule1.14.  1     OptionalWithdrawal    s  [7]Alawyermaywithdrawfromrepresentationinsomecircumstances.Thelawyerhas   theoptiontowithdrawifitcanbeaccomplishedwithoutmaterialadverseeffectontheclient's p  interests.Withdrawalisalsojustifiediftheclientpersistsinacourseofactionthatthelawyer Y  reasonablybelievesiscriminalorfraudulent,foralawyerisnotrequiredtobeassociatedwith B suchconductevenifthelawyerdoesnotfurtherit.Withdrawalisalsopermittedifthelawyer's +{ servicesweremisusedinthepastevenifthatwouldmateriallyprejudicetheclient.Thelawyer d alsomaywithdrawwheretheclientinsistsonarepugnantorimprudentobjectiveoraction. M   [8]Alawyermaywithdrawiftheclientrefusestoabidebythetermsofanagreement  relatingtotherepresentation,suchasanagreementconcerningfeesorcourtcostsoran  agreementlimitingtheobjectivesoftherepresentation.Thelawyermust,however,givethe  clientreasonablenoticeofthelawyersintentiontowithdraw.     AssistingtheClientUponWithdrawal  \   [9]Evenifthelawyerhasbeenunfairlydischargedbytheclient,alawyermusttakeall / reasonablestepstomitigatetheconsequencestotheclient.Thelawyermayretainpapersas h securityforafeeonlytotheextentpermittedbylaw.  Q   [10]Whetherornotalawyerforanorganizationmayundercertainunusual !#  circumstanceshavealegalobligationtotheorganizationafterwithdrawingorbeingdischarged " ! bytheorganization'shighestauthorityisbeyondthescopeoftheseRules. #"    _DEFINITIONAL_ԀCROSSREFERENCES w% $  v ConsentsinWritingSeeRule1.0(b) J'"&  ConsultationSeeRule1.0(c) 3(#'  Fraudand FraudulentSeeRule1.0(e) )l$(  MaterialandMateriallySeeRule1.0(g) *U%)  ReasonableSeeRule1.0(_i_) *>&*  ReasonablyBelievesSeeRule1.0(j) +''+  SubstantialSeeRule1.0(l)   SubstantiallySeeRule1.0(l)   TribunalSeeRule1.0(m)  Ѐ k    COMMITTEENOTES T aComparisonToCurrentTennesseeEthicsRules ( x    Paragraph(a):Withrespecttothemandatoryobligationtodeclinearepresentation,DR  K 2-109(A)providesthatalawyer"shallnotacceptemployment...iff  g thelawyerf  g f  g f  g Ԁknowsoritis  4  obviousthat[theprospectiveclient]wishesto...[_b]ring_Ԁalegalaction...orotherwisehave    stepstaken,merelyforthepurposeofharassingormaliciouslyinjuringanyperson....or   [_p]resent_Ԁaclaimordefense...thatisnotwarrantedunderexistinglaw,unlessitcanbe   supportedbygoodfaithargumentforanextension,modification,orreversalofexistinglaw."   Withrespecttomandatorywithdrawalfromarepresentation,DR2-110(B)providesthatf  [ag ]f  g  q  lawyerrepresentingaclientbeforeatribunal,withitspermissionifrequiredbyitsrules,shall Z  withdrawfromemploymentif:(1)thelawyerknowsoritisobviousthattheclientisbringing C thelegalaction,conductingthedefense,orisassertingapositioninthelitigationorisotherwise ,| havingstepstaken,merelyforthepurposeofharassingormaliciouslyinjuringanyperson;(2) e thelawyerknowsoritisobviousthatcontinuedemploymentwillresultinviolationofa N DisciplinaryRule;(3)thelawyersmentalorphysicalconditionrendersitunreasonablydifficult 7 forhimtocarryouttheemploymenteffectively;or(4)thelawyerisdischargedbyhisclient."       Paragraph(b):Thereisnocomparablerighttowithdraworseekpermissionofatribunal  towithdraw withoutcauseintheDisciplinaryRules.    TheenumeratedcausesforpermissivewithdrawalcomparetotheDisciplinaryRulesas ^ follows: G   Paragraph(b)(1):Subparagraph(b)(1)permitswithdrawalif theclientpersistsina i courseofactioninvolvingthelawyer'sservicesthatthelawyerreasonablybelievesiscriminalor  R fraudulent.DR2110(g C)(f  g 1),ontheotherhand,permitswithdrawaliftheclientinsistson  ; 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. x% $ 0   (#(#   Paragraph(b)(2):Thereisnocounterparttosubparagraph(b)(2)intheDisciplinary J'"& Rules. 3(#'   Paragraph(b)(3):DR2110(C)(1)(e)permitswithdrawalthef  g Ԁclient g f  g [_i]nsists_f  g ,inamatter *U%) notpendingbeforeatribunal,thatthelawyerengageinconductthatiscontrarytothejudgment *>&* andadviceofthelawyerbutnotprohibitedundertheDisciplinaryRules.Thisisconsistent_with +''+ 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. #"  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. -}  h #X%XX2X%!#CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges O Made2X%XXX%   9  #X%XX2X%#   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%w#2X%XXX%   +''+ _    PROPOSEDRULE1.17  SALEOFALAWPRACTICE  L  X 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   [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 v  [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 2! 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%#CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges M'"& Made2X%XXX%  7(#'    Nocommentsorchanges.   *[%) f  g #X%XX2X%2*#2X%XXX%  *D&*     CHAPTER2  THELAWYERASCOUNSELOR, INTERMEDIATOR m+Ԁ INTERMEDIARY +,  ANDDISPUTERESOLUTIONNEUTRAL   )++   PROPOSEDRULE2.1 X ADVISOR T, B  H,  Inrepresentingaclient,alawyershallexerciseindependentprofessionaljudgmentandrender  f candidadvice.Inrenderingadvice,alawyermayrefernotonlytolawbuttoother  O considerationssuchasmoral,economic,socialandpoliticalfactors,thatmayberelevanttothe  8  client'ssituation.  !     COMMENT     ScopeofAdvice  w  U.  [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. +-'+ _ԇ   OfferingAdvice   8  [5]Ingeneral,alawyerisnotexpectedtogiveadviceuntilaskedbytheclient.However,  whenalawyerknowsthataclientproposesacourseofactionthatislikelytoresultin l substantialadverselegalconsequencestotheclient,dutytotheclientunderRule1.4may U requirethatthelawyeractiftheclient'scourseofactionisrelatedtotherepresentation.A >  lawyerordinarilyhasnodutytoinitiateinvestigationofaclient'saffairsortogiveadvicethat ' w theclienthasindicatedisunwanted,butalawyermayinitiateadvicetoaclientwhendoingso  ` appearstobeintheclient'sinterest.  I    _DEFINITIONAL_ԀCROSSREFERENCES     :<  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%*# CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges "! Made 2X%XXX% #"   Nocommentsorchanges.f  g  % $     PROPOSEDRULE2.2  LAWYERSERVINGASINTERMEDIARYBETWEENCLIENTS  B B  B.` hp x (#XB     (a)Alawyerrepresentsclientsasanintermediarywhenthelawyerprovidesimpartiallegal n adviceandassistancetotwoormoreclientswhoareengagedinacandidandnon-adversarial W efforttoaccomplishacommonobjectivewithrespecttotheformation,conduct,modification,or @  terminationofaconsensuallegalrelationbetweenthem. ) y   (b)Alawyerf  may g f  g shallnotf   g Ԁrepresenttwoormoreclientsasanintermediaryinamatterf  if g f  g unlessf   g :  K   (1)asbetweentheclients,thelawyerreasonablybelievesthatthemattercanbe       resolvedontermscompatiblewitheachoftheclients'bestinterests,thateachclient     willbeabletomakeadequatelyinformeddecisionsinthematter,thatthereislittle     riskofmaterialprejudicetotheinterestofanyoftheclientsifthecontemplated      resolutionisunsuccessful,andthattheintermediationcanbeundertakenimpartially; q     and YIԀ Z    (2)thelawyersrepresentationofeachoftheclients,orthelawyersrelationshipwith ,|   each,willnotbeadverselyaffectedbythelawyer'sresponsibilitiestootherclientsor e   thirdpersons,orbythelawyer'sowninterests; and JԀ#X%XX2X%!B#2X%XXX% N   (3)thelawyerconsultswitheachclientabout:      ` (_i_)thelawyersresponsibilitiesasanintermediary; and LԀ#X%XX2X%'K#2X%XXX%     ` (ii)theimplicationsoftheintermediation(includingtheadvantagesandrisks t    ` involvedandtheeffectontheattorneyclientprivilegeandanyother  ]    ` obligationofconfidentialitythelawyermayhave); and MԀ#X%XX2X%oL#2X%XXX% F  ?+` ` hp x (#X?(iii)anycircumstancesthatwillmateriallyaffectthelawyersimpartiality h betweentheclients; and :O#X%XX2X%>N#2X%XXX%  Q  B.` hp x (#` XB   ` (iv)thelawyersrepresentationinanothermatterofaclientwhoseinterests !#     ` aredirectlyadversetotheinterestsofanyoneoftheclients;andanyinterests " !    ` ofthelawyer,thelawyersotherclients,orthirdpersonsthatwillmaterially #"    ` limitthelawyersrepresentationofoneoftheclients;and $#   (4)eachclientconsentsinwritingtothelawyersrepresentationandeachclient  `&!%   authorizesthelawyertodisclosetoeachoftheotherclientsbeingrepresentedinthe I'"&   matteranyinformationrelatingtotherepresentationthedisclosureofwhichthe  2(#'   lawyerreasonablybelievesisrequiredbyRule1.4. )k$( (c)Whilerepresentingclientsasanintermediary,thelawyershall: *=&*  +&'+   (1)actimpartiallytoassisttheclientsinaccomplishingtheircommonobjective; and T    (2)asbetweentheclients,treatinformationrelatingtotheintermediationas     informationprotectedbyRule1.6thatthelawyerhasbeenauthorizedbyeachclient k   todisclosetotheotherclientstotheextentthelawyerreasonablybelievesnecessary T   forthelawyertocomplywithRule1.4;and =    (3)shallconsultwitheachclientconcerningthedecisionstobemadewithrespectto  _   theintermediationandconsiderationsrelevantinmakingthem,sothateachclientcan  H   makeadequatelyinformeddecisions.  1  (d)Alawyershallwithdrawfromserviceasanintermediaryif:     (1)anyoftheclientssorequests; or }XԀ    X?+ ` hp x (#X?(2)anyoftheclientsrevokesthelawyersauthoritytodisclosetotheotherclientsany W  informationthatthelawyerwouldberequiredbyRule1.4torevealtothem;or @  XB.` hp x (#XB  (3)anyoftheotherconditionsstatedinparagraph(b)arenolongersatisfied. b (e)Ifthelawyerswithdrawalisrequiredbyparagraph(d)(2)thelawyershallsoadviseeach 4 clientofthewithdrawal,butshalldosowithoutanyfurtherdisclosureofinformationprotected  byRule1.6.  C   COMMENT  [^  [1]AlawyeractsasanintermediaryunderthisRulewhenthelawyerrepresentstwoor \ moreclientswhoarecooperativelytryingtoaccomplishacommonobjectivewithrespecttothe E formation,conduct,modification,orterminationofaconsensuallegalrelationbetweenthem. .~ Thehallmarksofanintermediationincludetheimpartialityofthelawyerwhoservesas g intermediary,theopen,candid,andnon-adversarialnatureoftheclientspursuitofacommon  P objective,andthelimitedsubjectmattersinwhichalawyermayservemultipleclientsasan  9 intermediary(i.e.,theadjustmentofaconsensuallegalrelationshipamongorbetweenthe !"  clients).#X%XX2X%O#X%XXX%f  Giventhespecialdangers g f  g Becauseintermediationdifferssignificantlyfromthepartisan " ! rolenormallyplayedbylawyers,andrequiresthatthelawyerbeimpartialasbetweentheclients #" ratherthananadvocateonbehalfofeach,alawyershouldonlyundertakethisrolewithclient $# consentafterconsultationaboutthedistinctivefeaturesofthisrole.#X%XXX%k_#2X%XXX%ԀAlso,giventherisksf   g  v% $ associatedwithjointrepresentationofpartieswhoseinterestsmaypotentiallybeinconflict,the _&!% Ruleprovidesanumberofsafeguardsdesignedtolimititsapplicabilityandtoprotectthe H'"& interestsoftheseveralclients. 1(#'   [2]Paragraph(b)specifiesthecircumstancesinwhichalawyermayservemultiple *S%) clientsasanintermediary.Withrespecttotheclientsbeingservedasanintermediary,thisRule, *<&* andnotRule1.7,applies.Rule1.7remainsapplicable,however,toprotectotherclientsthe +%'+ lawyermayberepresentingormaywishtorepresentinothermatters.Forexample,ifthe  lawyersrepresentationoftwoclientsasanintermediaryinamatterwillmateriallylimitthe  lawyersrepresentationofanotherclientthelawyerisrepresentingasanadvocate,thelawyer  mustaffordthatclienttheprotectionsofRule1.7f  ,whileaffordingtheclientsthelawyeris k servingasanintermediarytheprotectionsofthisrule g .Similarly,ifthelawyersrepresentation T oftwoclientsasanintermediarywouldbemateriallyadversetooneofthelawyersformer =  clients,andthemattersaresubstantiallyrelated,thelawyermustaffordtheformerclientthe & v protectionofRule1.9.  _   [3]Rule2.2doesnotapplytoalawyeractingasadisputeresolutionneutral,suchasan  1  arbitratororamediator,asthepartiestoadisputeresolutionproceedingarenotclientsofthe    lawyer,evenwherethelawyerhasbeenappointedwiththeconcurrenceoftheparties.Other   rulesofconductgovernalawyersserviceasadisputeresolutionneutral.SeeRule2.4and   TennesseeSupremeCourtRule31.   f  g   [4]#X%XX2X%a#BecausethisRuleonlyappliestotheformation,conduct,modificationortermination W  ofconsensuallegalrelationshipsbetweenclients,itdoesnotapplytotherepresentationof @ multipleclientsinconnectionwithgratuitoustransfersorothermattersinwhichthereisnota )y quidproquoexchange.Thus,forexample,conflictsofinterestarisingfromtherepresentation b ofmultipleclientsinestateplanningortheadministrationofanestatearegovernedbyRule1.7 K ratherthanbythisRule.If,however,theeffectuationofanestateplanorothergratuitous 4 transferentailstheformation,modificationorterminationofaconsensuallegalrelationship  betweenclients,andthelawyeractsasanintermediaryinconnectionwiththetransaction,this  Rule,andnotRule1.7,willapply.2X%XXX%  f   g   [f  4 g f  g 5f   g ]Alawyermayactasanintermediaryinseekingtoestablishoradjustaconsensual q legalrelationshipamongorbetweenclientsonanamicableandmutuallyadvantageousbasis:for Z example,inhelpingtoorganizeabusinessinwhichtwoormoreclientsareentrepreneurs, C workingoutthefinancialreorganizationofanenterpriseinwhichtwoormoreclientshavean ,| interestf  ,orarrangingapropertydistributioninsettlementofanestate g .Aspartoftheworkofan e intermediary,thelawyermayseektoachievetheclientscommonobjectiveortoresolve N potentiallyconflictinginterestsbydevelopingtheparties'mutualinterests.Thealternativemay  7 bethateachpartymayhavetoobtainseparaterepresentation,withthepossibilityinsome !   situationsofincurringadditionalcost,complications,orevenlitigation.Giventheseandother " ! relevantfactors,eachclientmayprefertohaveonelawyeractasanintermediaryforallrather #" thanhiringaseparatelawyertoserveashisorherpartisan. $#   [f  5 g f  g 6f   g ]Inconsideringwhethertoactasintermediarybetweenclients,alawyershouldbe ]&!% mindfulthat,iftheintermediationfails,theresultcanbeadditionalcost,embarrassment,and F'"& recrimination.Insomesituations,theriskoffailureissogreatthatintermediationisplainly /(#' impossibleorimprudentforthelawyerortheclients.Forexample,alawyercannotundertake )h$( commonrepresentationofclientsbetweenwhomcontentiouslitigationisimminentorwho *Q%) contemplatecontentiousnegotiations,asisoftenthecasewhendissolutionofamarriageis *:&* involved.Moregenerally,iftherelationshipbetweenthepartieshasalreadyassumed_definite +#'+ antagonism,thepossibilitythattheclients'interestscanbeadjustedbyintermediationordinarily  isnotverygood.    [f  6 g f  g 7f   g ]Theappropriatenessofintermediationcandependonitsform.Formsof k intermediationrangefromaninformal"facilitation"inwhichthelawyersresponsibilitiesare T limitedtopresentingalternativesfromwhichtheclientswillchoosetoafull-blown =  representationinwhichthelawyerprovidesalllegalservicesneededinconnectionwiththe & v proposedtransaction.Oneformmaybeappropriateincircumstanceswhereanotherwouldnot.  _ Otherrelevantfactorsarewhetherthelawyersubsequentlywillrepresentbothpartiesona  H continuingbasisf  Ԁand g f  g ,f   g Ԁwhetherthesituationinvolvescreatingarelationshipbetweentheparties  1  orterminatingonef  g ,andtherelativeexperience,sophistication,andeconomicbargainingpower    oftheclients,ortheexistenceofpriorfamilial,business,orlegalrelationshipsf   g .   \   ConfidentialityandPrivilege    ~  [f  7 g f  g 8f   g ]Aparticularlyimportantfactorindeterminingtheappropriatenessofintermediation Y  istheeffectonclientlawyerconfidentialityandtheattorneyclientprivilege.Inacommon B representation,thelawyerisstillrequiredbothtokeepeachclientadequatelyinformedandto +{ maintainconfidentialityofinformationrelatingtotherepresentation.SeeRules1.4and1.6. d Complyingwithbothrequirementswhileactingasintermediaryrequiresadelicatebalance.If M thebalancecannotbemaintained,thecommonrepresentationisimproper. 6   [f  8 g f  g 9f   g ]Paragraph(b)(4)and(c)(2)makesclearthattheobligationsofattorney-client  confidentialityapplytoclientsbeingservedbyalawyerasanintermediary,butthat,asbetween  theclientsbeingsoserved,confidentialityisinappropriateandmustbewaivedbyeachofthe  clients.Thus,whilethelawyermustmaintainconfidentialityasagainststrangerstothe s relationship,thelawyerhasnosuchdutytokeepinformationprovidedtothelawyerbyone \ clientconfidentialfromtheotherclients.Moreover,thelawyermaywell,dependingonthe E circumstances,haveanaffirmativeobligationtodisclosesuchinformationobtainedfromone .~ clienttootherclients.Obviously,thisimportantimplicationofthelawyersresponsibilitiesas g anintermediarymustbedisclosedandexplainedtotheclients.  P   [f  9 g f  g 10f   g ]Sincethelawyerisrequiredtobeimpartialbetweencommonlyrepresentedclients, !"  intermediationisimproperwhenthatimpartialitycannotbemaintained.Forexample,alawyer " ! whohasrepresentedoneoftheclientsforalongperiodandinavarietyofmattersmighthave #" difficultybeingimpartialbetweenthatclientandonetowhomthelawyerhasonlyrecentlybeen $# introduced. v% $   Consultation H'"& k  [1f  0 g f  g 1f   g ]Inactingasintermediarybetweenclients,thelawyerisrequiredtoconsultwiththe )l$( clientsontheimplicationsofdoingso,andproceedonlyuponconsentbasedonsucha *U%) consultation.Theconsultationshouldmakeclearthatthelawyer'sroleisnotthatofpartisanship *>&* normallyexpectedinothercircumstances.Thisconsentmustbeinwriting.  +''+     [1f  1 g f  g 2f   g ]Paragraph(c)(3)isanapplicationoftheprincipleexpressedinRule1.4.Wherethe  lawyerisintermediary,theclientsordinarilymustassumegreaterresponsibilityfordecisions  thanwheneachclientisindependentlyrepresented. j   Withdrawal <    [1f  2 g f  g 3f   g ]Commonrepresentationdoesnotdiminishtherightsofeachclientintheclient  ` lawyerrelationship.Eachclienthastherighttoloyalanddiligentrepresentation,therightto  I dischargethelawyerasstatedinRule1.16,andtheprotectionofRule1.9concerningobligations  2  toaformerclient.      [1f  3 g f  g 4f   g ]Becauseoftheobligationsofalawyerservingasanintermediarytothe   intermediationclients,thelawyermustwithdrawfromtherepresentationifanyofthe   intermediationclientssorequests;ifoneormoreoftheclientsdeniesthelawyertheauthorityto o  disclosecertaininformationtoanyoftheremainingclients,therebypreventingthelawyerfrom X  beingabletodischargethelawyersdutiestotheremainingclientstocommunicatewiththem A anddiscloseinformationtothem;orifanyofthevariouspredicaterequirementsfor *z intermediationcannolongerbesatisfied. c   [1f  4 g f  g 5f   g ]Uponwithdrawalfromtheroleofintermediaryorcompletionofanintermediation, 5 thelawyermustaffordalloftheclientsformerlyservedasanintermediarytheprotectionsof  Rules1.9and1.10.     _DEFINITIONAL_ԀCROSS-REFERENCES   "ConsentsinWriting"SeeRule1.0(b) ] "Consults"SeeRule1.0(c) F "Material"and MateriallySeeRule1.0(g) / "ReasonablyBelieves"SeeRule1.0(j) h    COMMITTEENOTES  : wComparisonToCurrentTennesseeEthicsRules "!   ThereisnodirectcounterparttotheProposedRuleintheDisciplinaryRules._EC_Ԁ520 $# statesthata"lawyerisoftenaskedtoserveasanimpartialarbitratorormediatorinmatters {% $ whichinvolvepresentorformerclients.Hemayserveineithercapacityifhefirstdisclosessuch d&!% presentorformerrelationships."DR5105(B)providesthatalawyer"shallnotcontinue M'"& multipleemploymentiftheexerciseofhisindependentjudgmentinbehalfofaclientwillbeor 6(#' islikelytobeadverselyaffectedbyhisrepresentationofanotherclient,orifitwouldbelikelyto )o$( involvehiminrepresentationofdifferinginterests,excepttotheextentpermittedunderDR5 *X%) 105(C)."DR5105(C)providesthat"alawyermayrepresentmultipleclientsifitisobviousthat *A&* hecanadequatelyrepresenttheinterestsofeachandifeachconsentstotherepresentationafter +*'+ fulldisclosureofthepossibleeffectofsuchrepresentationontheexerciseofhisindependent  professionaljudgmentonbehalfofeach."   ComparisonToABAModelRules k   TheProposedRuleembracestheconceptsunderlyingABAModelRule2.2,but ?  attemptstomorecomprehensivelyandspecificallytosetforththelawyersresponsibilitieswhen ( x undertakingtoserveasanimpartialintermediarybetweentwoclients.ModelRule2.2provides:  a    `    ?+ ` hp x (#X?RULE2.2Intermediary  3    (a)Alawyermayactasintermediarybetweenclientsif:   ?+` ` hp x (#(#X?0  0` (#(#(1)thelawyerconsultswitheachclientconcerningtheimplicationsofthe   commonrepresentation,includingtheadvantagesandrisksinvolved,andthe p  effectontheattorneyclientprivileges,andobtainseachclient'sconsenttothe Y  commonrepresentation;B` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#(2)thelawyerreasonablybelievesthatthemattercanberesolvedonterms d compatiblewiththeclients'bestinterests,thateachclientwillbeabletomake M adequatelyinformeddecisionsinthematterandthatthereislittleriskofmaterial 6 prejudicetotheinterestofanyoftheclientsifthecontemplatedresolutionis  unsuccessful;and` (#` (# 0  0` (#(#(3)thelawyerreasonablybelievesthatthecommonrepresentationcanbe @  @  @   undertakenimpartiallyandwithoutimpropereffectonotherresponsibilitiesthe @~"  @~"  s lawyerhastoanyoftheclients.\` (#` (# B+ ` hp x (#` ` X(#B  (b)Whileactingasintermediary,thelawyershallconsultwitheachclientconcerning .~   thedecisionstobemadeandtheconsiderationsrelevantinmakingthem,sothateach g   clientcanmakeadequatelyinformeddecisions.  P   (c)Alawyershallwithdrawasintermediaryifanyoftheclientssorequests,orifany !"    oftheconditionsstatedinParagraph(a)isnolongersatisfied.Uponwithdrawal,the " !   lawyershallnotcontinuetorepresentanyoftheclientsinthematterthatwasthe  #" 0  subjectoftheintermediation.$#(#(# B.` hp x (#XB ChangesMadeto1997CommitteePreliminaryDraftInResponsetoComments _&!%    Paragraph(a):Nochanges. 3(#'   Paragraph(b):Nochangeinsubstance.Compressionofconflictofintereststandards *U%) intotwoparagraphs.Eliminationofawkwardreferencesto"intermediationclients." *>&*  +''+   Paragraph(c):Nochangeinsubstance.Aseachpartytotheintermediationisthe  lawyersclient,theCommitteedeletedSubparagraphs(c)(2)and(3)asunnecessarilyrepetitive  ofRules1.6and1.2.    Paragraph(f):Aseachpartytoanintermediationisaclient,theCommitteedeleted T Paragraph(f)asunnecessarilyrepetitiveofRule1.9,whichlaysoutalawyersdutiestoformer =  clients. & v  #X%XX2X%\n#CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges  H Made2X%XXX%  2  f  #X%XX2X%L#   InresponsetosuggestionsfromtheTBATax,Probate,andTrustLawSection,the   CommitteeproposesachangetoParagraph(b),theadditionofnewcomment[4],andsome   minorchangestoComments[1],[5],and[7].ThechangeinParagraph(b)andthenew   Comment,togetherwiththeadditionofanewComment[22]toRule1.7,areintendedto q  confirmandclarifythatRule1.7andRule2.2aremutuallyexclusive.Rule2.2governswhena Z  lawyerprovidesclientsimpartiallegaladviceandassistanceinconnectionwithaconsensual C transactionbetweenthem.Rule1.7appliestoallotherrepresentationsinwhichthelawyeris ,| presumedtoberepresentingeachclientasapartisanadvocate.Thisdistinctionishighlightedby e thespecificationintheCommentsthattherepresentationofmultipleclientsinconnectionwith N gratuitoustransfersisgovernedbyRule1.7ratherthanRule2.2.Inthisregard,theCommittee 7 rejectedaproposaltoallowlawyerswhowouldrepresentmultiplepartiesinabusiness   transactiontochoosebetweenprovidingthemwithimpartialadviceandassistanceorserving   eachclientasapartisanadvocate.Thiswouldhavegiventhelawyerachoiceofcomplyingwith  eitherRule1.7orRule2.2.TheCommitteeopposessuchanapproachbecauseitbelievesthat  advocacyandintermediationaremutuallyexclusiveroles,andthatpartisanadvocacyisnotan t appropriaterolewhenalawyerisrepresentingtwoclientsinaconsensualtransactionbetween ] them. F 2X%XXX% f  g  h     PROPOSEDRULE2.3  EVALUATIONFORUSEBYTHIRDPERSONS   aw;H (a)Alawyermayundertakeanevaluationofamatteraffectingaclientfortheuseofsomeone n otherthantheclientif: W 0  (1)thelawyerreasonablybelievesthatmakingtheevaluationiscompatiblewithother ) y aspectsofthelawyer'srelationshipwiththeclient;and b(#(# 0  (2)theclientconsentsafterconsultation. 4 (#(# (b)Exceptasdisclosureisrequiredinconnectionwithareportofanevaluation,information   relatingtotheevaluationisotherwiseprotectedbyRule1.6.      COMMENT  q   n  Definition  E   [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   R  [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%# CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges   Made 2X%XXX%   #X%XX2X%a#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   y aw(a)Alawyerservesasadisputeresolutionneutralwhenthelawyerimpartiallyassiststwoor m morepersonswhoarenotclientsofthelawyertoreacharesolutionofdisputesthathavearisen V betweenthem.Serviceasadisputeresolutionneutralmayincludeserviceasamediator,an ?  arbitratorwhosedecisiondoesnotbindtheparties,acaseevaluator,orajudgeorjurorina ( x minitrialorsummaryjurytrialasdescribedinSupremeCourtRule31,orinsuchothercapacity  a aswillenablethelawyertoimpartiallyassistthepartiesresolvetheirdispute. x    J (b)Alawyermayserveasadisputeresolutionneutralinamatterif:      (1)thelawyeriscompetenttohandlethematter; and       `   (2)thelawyercanhandlethematterwithoutunduedelay; and !#X%XX2X%#2X%XXX% p    (3)thelawyerreasonablybelievesheorshecanbeimpartialasbetweenthe  B   parties; and 6#X%XX2X%r#2X%XXX% +{ ` ` (4)noneofthepartiestothedisputeisbeingrepresentedbythelawyerinothermatters; M  and Z#X%XX2X%#2X%XXX% 6 (5)thelawyersserviceasadisputeresolutionneutralinthematterwillnotbeadversely  affectedbytherepresentationofclientswithinterestsdirectlyadversetoanyofthe  partiestothedispute,orbythelawyersresponsibilitiestoaclientorathirdperson,or  bythelawyersowninterests; and w#X%XX2X%#2X%XXX% s    ` (6)thelawyerconsultswitheachofthepartiestothedispute,ortheirattorneys,aboutthe E lawyersqualificationsandexperienceasadisputeresolutionneutral,therulesand .~ procedureswhichwillbefollowedintheproceeding,andthelawyersresponsibilitiesas g adisputeresolutionneutral,provided,however,thatanypartytothedisputewhois  P representedbyalawyermaywaivehisorherrighttoallorpartoftheconsultation  9 requiredbythisparagraph; and v#X%XX2X%#2X%XXX%Ԁ !"  (7)thelawyerconsultswitheachoftheparties,ortheirlawyers,aboutanyinterestsof #" thelawyer,thelawyersclients,theclientsofotherlawyerswithwhomthelawyeris $# associatedinafirm,orthirdpersonswhichmaymateriallyaffectthelawyers v% $ impartialityinthematter; and ]#X%XX2X%#2X%XXX% _&!%  `    (8)unlesstheserviceispursuanttoSupremeCourtRule31,eachoftheparties,ortheir 1(#' attorneys,consentsinwritingtothelawyersserviceasadisputeresolutionneutralinthe )j$( matter;and *S%)   *<&* '  (9)iftheserviceispursuanttoSupremeCourtRule31,thelawyerisqualifiedtoservein     accordancewiththerequirementsofthatRule.  (c)Whileservingasadisputeresolutionneutral,alawyershall: k (1)actreasonablytoassurethatthepartiesunderstandtherulesandprocedureswhich =  willbefollowedintheproceedingandthelawyersresponsibilitiesasadispute & v resolutionneutral; and d#X%XX2X%#2X%XXX%  _ mҀ0  (2)actimpartially,competentlyandexpeditiouslytoassistthepartiesresolvethematters  1  indispute; and #X%XX2X%#2X%XXX%  (#(# 0  (3)promotemutualrespectamongthepartiesforthedisputeresolutionprocess; and s#X%XX2X%#2X%XXX% (#(#    ` 0  (4)asbetweenthepartiestothedisputeandthirdpersons,treatallinformationrelatedto n  thedisputeasifitwereinformationprotectedbyRules1.6f  , g f  g Ԁandf   g Ԁ1.8(b)f  ,and1.9(b) g ;f  and#X%XX2X%#2X%XXX% g W (#(# 0  (5)asbetweenthepartiestothedispute,treatallinformationobtainedinanindividual )y caucuswithapartyorapartyslawyerasifitwereinformationrelatedtothe b representationofaclientprotectedbyRules1.6f  ,1.8(b) g Ԁand1.f  9 g f  g 8f   g (b); and3#X%XX2X%#2X%XXX%f  g K(#(# Ѐ0  (6)rendernolegaladvicetoanypartytothedispute,but,ifthelawyerbelievesthatan  unrepresentedpartydoesnotunderstandhowaproposedagreementmightf  adversely   g affecthisorherlegalrightsorobligations,thelawyershalladvisethatpartytoseekthe  adviceofindependentcounsel; and#X%XX2X%#2X%XXX%(#(#     ` 0  (7)acceptnothingofvalue,otherthanfullydisclosedreasonablecompensationfor Z servicesrenderedasthedisputeresolutionneutral,fromaparty,apartyslawyer,orany C otherpersoninvolvedorinterestedinthedisputeresolutionprocess; and \#X%XX2X%#2X%XXX%,|(#(#    ` 0  (8)notseektocoerceorunfairlyinfluenceapartytoacceptaproposalforresolutionofa N matterindisputeandshallnotmakeanysubstantivedecisionsonbehalfofaparty;and 7(#(#    ` 0  (9)iftheserviceispursuanttoSupremeCourtRule31,complywithallotherdutiesofa " ! disputeresolutionneutralassetforthintheRule.#"(#(#    ` (d)Alawyershallwithdrawfromserviceasadisputeresolutionneutralor,ifappointedbya t% $ court,shallseekthecourtspermissiontowithdrawfromserviceasadisputeresolutionneutral ]&!% if: F'"& (1)anyofthepartiessorequests; or 2#X%XX2X%#2X%XXX% )h$(   *Q%) 0  (2)thelawyerreasonablybelievesthatfurtherdisputef  Ԁf  g resolutionserviceswillnotleadto  anagreementresolvingthematterindisputeorthatanyofthepartiesisunwillingor  unabletocooperatewiththelawyersdisputeresolutioninitiatives;or(#(#     ` 0  (3)anyoftheconditionsstatedinparagraph(b)arenolongersatisfied.T(#(# (e)Uponterminationofalawyersserviceasadisputeresolutionneutral,thelawyer: & v (1)may,withtheconsentofallthepartiestothedispute, incompliancewiththe  H requirementsofRules1.2(c)and2.2, #X%XX2X%#2X%XXX%draftasettlementagreementthatresultsfromthe  1  disputeresolutionprocess,butshallnototherwiserepresentanyorallofpartiesin    connectionwiththematter,and   d(2)shallaffordeachpartytothedisputetheprotectionsaffordedaclientbyRules1.6,   1.8(b),and1.9. n  m  COMMENT  @ #  a  [1]Mediation,arbitration,andotherformsofalternativedisputeresolutionhavebeenin c useformanyyears,butincreasingdemandsinrecentyearsformorepromptandefficientmeans L ofresolvingdisputesofallkindshaveledtoanincreaseinthedemandfortheservicesofdispute 5 resolutionneutralsskilledintheanalysisofdisputesandinconflictresolution.Lawyersareoften  particularlywellsuitedtoperformthisroleandshouldbeencouragedtodoso.    [2]Althoughserviceasadisputeresolutionneutralisconsideredalawrelatedservice  governedgenerallybytheseRules(seeRule5.7),theuniquenatureofalawyersrolewhen r servingasadisputeresolutionneutraldemandsseparate,morespecific,treatmentinthisRulefor [ theguidanceoftheprofessionandthepublic. D   [3]ThisRuleprovidesthatalawyermayserveasadisputeresolutionneutral,whetheras f amediator,nonbindingarbitrator,acaseevaluator,orjudgeorjurorinaminitrialorsummary O jurytrial.Thescopeofalawyerspossibleserviceasaneutralisintendedtobegenerallythe  8 sameasthatadoptedinTennesseeSupremeCourtRule31governingcourtannexedalternative !!  disputeresolution.WhileRule31coversonlycourtannexedalternativedisputeresolution, " ! however,thisRulecoversservicesasadisputeresolutionneutralwhetherrenderedin #" connectionwithcourtannexeddisputeresolutionproceedingsorinanother,perhapswholly $# privatecontextnotcoveredbyRule31. u% $   [4]ThisRuledoesnotcovertherenderingbyalawyerofservicesrelatedtoalternative G'"& disputeresolutionthatarenotneutralinnature,butaremorejudicialinnature,suchasserviceas 0(#' anarbitratorinabindingarbitration.AlthoughRule5.7mayaddressalawyersobligationsin )i$( suchacontext,thisRuledoesnotpurporttoaddressthem. *R%)   *;&*   [5]AlthoughalawyerwhoservesasadisputeresolutionneutralissubjecttotheRulesof   ProfessionalConduct(seeRule5.7),manyoftheRulesdonotdirectlyapplytosuchservice  becausetheparticipantsinadisputeresolutionproceedingarenotthelawyersclients.Other  Rulesdoapply,however,andthisRulefurtherprovidesspecificapplicationsofcertainrulesthat k mustapplydifferentlyinthiscontext(including,forexample,theapplicationofrulesgoverning T conflictsofinterest). =  _  [6]AlthoughtherequirementsofthisRulearegenerallyintendedtobeconsistentwith  _ thoseimposedondisputeresolutionneutralsunderRule31,therearedutiesadditionaltothose  H setoutinRule31thatareimposedonlawyerswhoserveinthisrole.SeealsoStandardsof  1  ProfessionalConductforRule31Mediators.Eventhoughnonlawyers #X%XX2X%S#2X%XXX%_ԀcertifiedbytheSupreme    CourtunderRule31asdisputeresolutionneutralsmaynotbesubjecttotheseRulesandthe   partiestothedisputearenotdeemedtobetheclientsofthelawyerservingastheirdispute   resolutionneutral,thepartiesareproperlyentitledtoassumethatlawyersservinginthiscapacity   arelargelysubjecttothesamebroadstandardsofconductasareapplicabletolawyerswhenthey n  areprovidinglegalservicestoclients. W    [7]TheCourthassetforthinRule31rulesandstandardsofprofessionalconduct )y applicabletoallRule31neutrals,includingbothlawyersand_nonlawyers_.Thus,paragraph(b) b contemplatesthatalawyermayserveasaRule31neutralifthelawyercomplieswiththese K requirements.Paragraph(b)(9)requiresthatalawyerservingasadisputeresolutionneutral 4 pursuanttoSupremeCourtRule31mustcomplyfullywiththerequirementsofthatRule.  ?+ 4 <DL!X?  [8]Paragraph(b)specifiesthecircumstancesinwhichalawyermayservepartiestoa  disputeasadisputeresolutionneutral.Withrespecttothepartiestothedispute,Rule1.7is  inapplicablebecausethereisnoattorneyclientrelationshipbetweentheneutralandtheparties q tothedispute.Rule1.7remainsapplicable,however,toprotectaclient,asdistinctfromparties Z thelawyerisservingasaneutral,ifthelawyersserviceasaneutralwillmateriallylimitthe C lawyersrepresentationoftheclient.Similarly,ifthelawyersserviceasaneutralwouldbe ,| materiallyadversetooneofthelawyersformerclients,andthemattersaresubstantiallyrelated, e thelawyermustaffordtheformerclienttheprotectionofRule1.9.?+ 4 <DL!X?21X2X% N #2X%X21#  [9]Conflictsofinterestforlawyersservingasdisputeresolutionneutralsarespecifically !  addressed,giventhefactthat,althoughpartiestoadisputeresolutionproceedingarenotthe m"! clientsofthedisputeresolutionneutral,thelawyerservingasneutralmustbeimpartial,must V#" fullydiscloseanypertinentrelationshipstothepartiestotheproceeding,andmustobtaintheir ?$# consenttothelawyersservicebasedonthesedisclosures.Notethat,althoughparagraph(b)(4) (%x $ doesnotprovideformandatoryvicariousdisqualificationbasedonalawyerscurrentor &a!% prospectiveserviceasadisputeresolutionneutral,thefactthat,forexample,alawyeraskedto &J"& serveasaneutralhasapartnerwhocurrentlyrepresentsoneofthepartiestothedisputeinother '3#' matterswouldobviouslyhavetodisclosethisfacttothepartiesunder(b)(7)andobtainconsent ($( toserviceasaneutral.Ofcourse,thislawyerwouldalsohavetohaveareasonablebeliefthat )%)  impartialitywaspossibledespitethisandothersuchpertinentrelationships.f  g Ԁ#X%XX2X% #ԀIfalawyermaynot *%* makethedisclosuresrequiredbyparagraph(b)(7)becauseofhisconfidentialityobligationstoa  client,thenthelawyermaynotserveasadisputeneutral.2X%XXX%f   g      [10]Paragraph(c)furtherprovidesvariousstandardsofconductparticulartoservicebya k lawyerasadisputeresolutionneutral.Again,theserulesofconductareintendedtobe T consistentwithRule31andtoaddresstheparticularsituationofaneutral,whooccupiesa =  significantlydifferentrelationshiptoparticipantsinadisputeresolutionproceedingthana & v lawyerdoeswithclients.Paragraphs(c)(4)and(c)(5)treattheconfidentialityofallinformation  _ relatedtothedispute(includingthatobtainedinindividualcaucuseswiththeparties)byanalogy  H totheRulesconcerningtheconfidentialityofclientinformation.Thus,forexample,any  1  questionconcerningthepotentialdisclosureoffraudbyaparticipantinadisputeresolution    proceedingwouldbeaddressedunderRules1.6,3.3or4.1asthoughtheparticipantwere,in   fact,aclientofthelawyer.Otherportionsofparagraph(c),suchasthebanonundisclosed   compensationbyoneoftheparticipantsinparagraph(c)(7),theprohibitiononcoercionor   decisionmakingonbehalfofpartiesinparagraph(c)(8),andthebanongivinglegaladviceto n  theparticipantsinparagraph(c)(6),imposerestrictionsneededtoinsureandreinforcethe W  necessaryimpartialityofthelawyerservingasadisputeresolutionneutral. @   [11]Paragraph(d)requiresthatalawyerservingasadisputeresolutionneutralwithdraw b orseekanappointingcourtspermissiontowithdrawincertainspecifiedcircumstances,suchas K arequestbyapartytodosoorthelawyersreasonablebeliefthatthelawyersservicewillnot 4 befruitful.    [12]Paragraph(e)establishesalawyersdutiestowardparticipantsinadispute  resolutionproceedingupontheterminationofthelawyersserviceasaneutralforanyreason,  whetherbecauseasettlementisachievedorbecauseapartyrequeststhelawyerswithdrawal. q Giventheimpartialroleofadisputeresolutionneutral,itisinappropriateforalawyerwhohad Z servedasadisputeresolutionneutraltolaterrepresentanyofthepartiestothedisputein C connectionwiththesubjectmatterofthatdisputeresolutionproceedingf  ,unlessthe ,| representationislimitedtodraftingasettlementagreementthatresultsfromthedispute e resolutionprocess g .Thisf  Ruledoesnot,however,extendthis g disqualification, however,doesnot N extend %Ԁtootherlawyersassociatedinalawfirmwiththedisputeresolutionneutral.f  g Ԁ#X%XX2X%l#If,however,  7 thepartieshavesuccessfullyresolvedtheirdispute,paragraph(e)(1)permitsthelawyerneutral !   todrafttheagreementsettlingtheirdispute,butthismustbedoneinconformitywithRules " ! 1.2(c)and2.2.2X%XXX%Ԁ #"   [13]f   g ԀFurther,paragraph(e)(2)providesthat,eventhoughtheparticipantstoaconcluded t% $ disputeresolutionproceedingwerenottheclientsofthelawyerwhoservedasadispute ]&!% resolutionneutralinthatproceeding,theseparticipantsareneverthelessentitledtothe F'"& protectionsrelatingtoconfidentialityandconflictsofinterestaffordedf  toformerclients g byRules /(#' 1.6,1.8(b),and1.9f  g Ԁasiftheywereformerclientsf   g .f  g Ԁf   )h$(    _DEFINITIONAL_ԀCROSSREFERENCES  *:&*  +$'+ * ConsentsinWritingSeeRule1.0(b)   Consultationand ConsultsSeeRule1.0(c)   FirmSeeRule1.0(d)   MateriallySeeRule1.0(g) k  Reasonableand ReasonablySeeRule1.0(_i_) T  ReasonablyBelievesSeeRule1.0(j) =    COMMITTEENOTES   _ - ComparisonToCurrentTennesseeEthicsRules  5     ThereisnocounterparttothisRuleintheDisciplinaryRules.     Withthefollowingexceptions,g theCommitteef  g ԀintendedtoconformRule2.4toSupreme   CourtRule31: s     ` 1.Theconflictofinterestdisclosurerulesinparagraph(b)(5)differfromthosein E 0  Rule31.OurpurposewastoconformthedisclosurerequirementstoRule1.7(b)inthose .~ casesinwhichthelawyersserviceasadisputeresolutionneutralisnotpursuanttoRule g 31.WewouldrecommendthatRule31beconformedtotheRulesofProfessional P Conduct.9(#(#    ` 2.Paragraph(b)(6)differsfromRule31inthatithasbeenconformedtoModel   0  Ruleterminologyandwepermitpartiesrepresentedbycounseltowaivethis  consultation.(#(#  ComparisonToABAModelRules _    ThereisnocounterparttothisRuleintheABAModelRules. 2  ChangesMadeto1997CommitteePreliminaryDraftInResponsetoComments   U   InresponsetorecommendationsfromtheAlternativeDisputeResolutionCommission, !(  theCommitteemadethefollowingtwochangestothePreliminaryDraft: "!   Paragraph(b):Paragraph(b)wasrestructuredsothatitsprovisionsareapplicabletoall $# _ADR_Ԁproceedings,whetherornotorderedpursuanttoRule31.Compliancewithadditional |% $ requirementsimposedbyRule31isnowmandatedbySubparagraph(b)(9). e&!%   Paragraph(e):Paragraph(e)(1)hasbeenamendedtonarrowthecircumstancesinwhich 7(#' alawyerwhohasservedasadisputeresolutionmaysubsequentlyrepresentoneormoreofthe  )p$( partiesthelawyerservedasaneutral.Thepreliminarydraftpermittedsuchsubsequent  *Y%)  representationifallthepartiesconsented.Thefinaldraftpermitsthelawyer,withconsentofall *B&* theparties,todraftasettlementagreementthathasresultedfromthedisputeresolutionprocess,  butotherwiseprohibitsrepresentationinconnectionwiththematter.     TheCommitteef  alsoaddedComment[8]andf  g Ԁreorderedf  g thef  g Commentsf  . k  f  g CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges =  Made ' w f  #X%XX2X%'#   1.TheCommitteehascorrectedaninaccuratecrossreferenceinParagraphs(c)(4)and  K (c)(5).  4    2.TheBoardofProfessionalResponsibilityhasrecommendedthatParagraphs(c)(4)and   (5)beamendedtoempowerthepartiestowaivetheconfidentialitytowhichtheywouldotherbe   entitledbyRules1.6,1.8(b),and1.9(c).ThechangerecommendedbytheBoardisunnecessary   andwouldberedundantbecauseallthreeofthecrossreferencedconfidentialityrulesprovide q  thatclientscanconsenttodisclosureoradverseuseofotherwiseprotectedinformation.If, Z  however,theCourtbelievesthatthispointneedstobemademorespecificallyinRule2.4,the C CommitteewouldrecommendaddinganewfifthsentencetoComment[10]thatwouldread: ,|  Also,likeaclient,apartybeingservedbyalawyerasadisputeresolutionneutralmayconsent e todisclosureoruseofinformationthatotherwisewouldbeprohibitedbyRules1.6or1.8(b). N   3.MikeHester,onbehalfoftheKnoxvilleBarAssociation,hasvoicedconcernthat   paragraph(b)(7)requiresalawyer/neutraltoconsultwiththepartiesaboutanyinterestsofthe   lawyersclientsthatmaymateriallyaffectthelawyersimpartiality.Theconcernisthatthismay  requireadisclosurethatwouldbeprohibitedbyRule1.6.TheCommitteesresponseistomake  nochangetotheconsultationrequirement,becausepartiestoadisputeresolutionprocessmust t beadvisediftheneutralsrepresentationofaclientwillmateriallylimittheneutrals ] impartiality.Rather,theCommitteehasaddedasentencetoComment[9]thatclarifiesthat,ifa F lawyercannotmakeadisclosurerequiredbyParagraph(b)(7)becauseitwouldrequire / disclosureofinformationrelatingtoaclientsrepresentationandtheclienthasnotconsentedto h thedisclosure,thelawyersimplycannotserveasaneutralbecausethelawyercannotprovidethe  Q consultationneededforthepartiesconsenttobeeffective.Thisisnodifferentthanthe  : outcomethatwouldresultifalawyerneededconsentofaclienttoarepresentationaffectedbya !#  conflictofinterestandcouldnotprovidetheclientwithinformationtheclientneededtomakean " ! adequatelyinformeddecisionaboutwhethertoconsenttotheconflict. #"   4.Mr.HesterhasalsovoicedconcernabouttherequirementinParagraph(c)(6)that if w% $ thelawyerbelievesthatanunrepresentedpartydoesnotunderstandhowaproposedagreement `&!% mightadverselyaffecthisorherlegalrightsorobligations,thelawyershalladvisethepartyto I'"& seektheadviceofindependentcounsel.Theconcernisthatthiswillserveasa redflagthat 2(#' theagreementisabadoneandthatsuchconductisinconsistentwiththeroleofaneutral.The )k$( Committeesresponseisnottodeletetheobligationtoadvisetheunrepresentedpartytoseek *T%) independentcounsel.Rather,theCommitteeproposesthatParagraph(c)(6)bemodifiedto *=&* neutralizetheobligationsoitappliesnotonlywhentherewouldbeanadverselegaleffectbut +&'+ ratheratanytimethelawyerbelievesthatanunrepresentedpartydoesnotunderstandthelegal  effectofaproposedagreement.TheCommitteewouldalsonotethatthisobligationcanbe  satisfiedbygivingthisadvicetoallunrepresentedpartiesattheoutsetofthedisputeresolution  process. k   5.Mr.JoeManuel,ofChattanooga,hasobjectedtoParagraph(e)(1)totheextentthatit =  permitsalawyerwhohasservedpartiesinadisputeresolutionprocesstosubsequentlydraft & v theirsettlementagreement.Apartfromthisgeneralobjection,heisespeciallytroubledbecause  _ theRuleappearstopermitalawyerwhohadwithdrawnasthemediatorpriortothecompletion  H oftheprocesstothereafterdrafttheagreementtheresultedfromtheprocess.Althoughthe  1  CommitteedoesnotagreewithMr.Manuelthatthereshouldbeanabsolutebaragainstthe    neutraldraftingtheagreementbetweentheparties,itisrecommendingthatParagraph(e)(1)be   modifiedtorequirethelawyertocomplywithRule1.2(c)(limitedrepresentationmustbe   reasonableunderthecircumstances)andRule2.2(specialrulesapplicablewhenlawyersserves   asanintermediarybetweenclientsinatransactionbetweenthem).Thisisbecausethelawyer n  whoisdraftingtheagreementhaschangedroles.Heorsheisnolongerservingthepartiesasa W  disputeresolutionneutral,butisnowundertakingtheirrepresentationasanintermediary @ betweenclients.ThisispartiallyresponsivetoMr.Manuelsconcernbecausetherewillbe )y instancesinwhichcircumstancesarisinginconnectionwiththedisputeresolutionprocesswould b precludethelawyerfromthereafterdraftingtheagreementasaRule2.2intermediary.2X%XXX%  K f  g #X%XX2X%IP#2X%XXX%  4     CHAPTER3  ADVOCATE  PROPOSEDRULE3.1 n MERITORIOUSCLAIMSANDCONTENTIONS  X P dvP  Alawyershallnotbringordefend,orcontinuewiththeprosecutionordefenseofa + { proceeding,orassertorcontrovert,orcontinuetoassertorcontrovert , RԀanissuethereinunless,  d afterreasonableinquiry,thelawyerhasabasisfordoingsothatisnotfrivolous,whichincludes  M agoodfaithargumentforanextension,modification,orreversalofexistinglaw.Alawyerfor  6  thedefendantinacriminalproceeding,ortherespondentinaproceedingthatcouldresultin    incarceration,mayneverthelesssodefendtheproceedingastorequirethateveryelementofthe   casebeestablished.      COMMENT  s  T  [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 S` 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%P# CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges ")r$( Made 2X%XXX%  *\%) f    Nocommentsorchanges. +/'+  f  g    PROPOSEDRULE3.2  EXPEDITINGLITIGATION   fm dvrm Alawyershallmakereasonableeffortstoexpeditelitigationconsistentwiththeinterestsofthe n client. W    COMMENT  ) y n  [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 !  s ReasonableSeeRule1.0(_i_)     COMMITTEENOTES  v t ComparisonToCurrentTennesseeEthicsRules I    DR7-101(A)(f  g 4f  g )providesf  inpertinentpartf  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%l# CommentsReceivedAfterSeptember2000Draft,CommitteeResponse,andChanges  Made 2X%XXX%   #X%XX2X%z#   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%l# 2X%XXX%  PROPOSEDRULE3.3    CANDORTOWARDTHETRIBUNAL   @(a)Alawyershallnotknowingly: m   (1)makeafalsestatementoffactorlawtoatribunal;or ?    (2)failtodisclosetothetribunallegalauthorityinthecontrollingjurisdictionknown  a   tothelawyertobedirectlyadversetothepositionoftheclientandnotdisclosedby  J   opposingcounsel;or  3    (3)inanexparteproceeding,failtoinformthetribunalofallmaterialfactsknownto     thelawyerwhichwillenablethetribunaltomakeaninformeddecision,whetherornot   Ѐthefactsareadverse.    (b)f  g f  g Exceptasprovidedinparagraph(c)(2),af  g Ԁlawyershallnotf  g offerorusef  g evidencef  g f  g thelawyer Y  knowstobefalse.Alawyerf  g Ԁmayrefusetoofferoruseevidence,otherthanthetestimonyofa B clientwhoisadefendantinacriminalmatter,thatthelawyerreasonablybelievesisfalse, +{ misleading,fraudulentorillegallyobtained .f  #X%XX2X%ދ#2X%XXX% d    (b)f  Ag f  g f  g Ԁlawyershallnotf  g offer f  g evidencef  g f  g thelawyerknowstobefalse,exceptthatalawyerwho 6 representsadefendantinacriminalproceeding,andwhohasbeendeniedpermissionto  withdrawfromthedefendantsrepresentationaftercompliancewithparagraph(f),mayallowthe  clienttotestifybywayofanundirectednarrativeortakesuchotheractionasisnecessaryto  honorthedefendantsconstitutionalrightsinconnectionwiththeproceeding.#X%XX2X%#2X%XXX%  (c)Alawyershallnot affirmthevalidityof,orotherwiseuse,anyevidence thelawyerknowsto \ befalse.  E  XvQ#X%XX2X%[#2X%XXX%  (d)Alawyerf  g Ԁmayrefusetoofferoruseevidence,otherthanthetestimonyofaclientwhoisa g defendantinacriminalmatter,thatthelawyerreasonablybelievesisfalse,misleading,  P fraudulentorillegallyobtained.#X%XX2X%#2X%XXX%Ԁ  9  – (c)Alawyerwhoknowsthatthelawyersclientintendstof  g perpetrateafrauduponthetribunalf  g , " ! orotherwisecommitanoffenseagainsttheadministrationofjusticeinconnectionwiththe #" proceedingshallf  g  $#  0  (1)f  g seekpermissionofthetribunaltowithdrawfromtherepresentationf  g oftheclientand _&!% shallinformthetribunal,withoutfurtherdisclosureofinformationprotectedbyRule1.6, H'"& thatthelawyer'srequesttowithdrawisrequiredbytheRulesofProfessionalConduct; 1(#' and )j$((#(#  0  (2)ifpermissiontowithdrawisnotgranted,thelawyershallproceedwiththe  *<&*  representationoftheclient,butshalltakenoactionthatwillassisttheclienttoengagein +%'+ theintendedmisconductotherthanpermittingaclientwhoisadefendantinacriminal  proceedingtotestifybywayofanundirectednarrativeortakingsuchotheractionasis  necessarytohonorthedefendantsconstitutionalrightsinconnectionwiththe  proceeding.#X%XX2X%#2X%XXX%k(#(# (d)Alawyerwho,priortotheconclusionoftheproceeding,comestoknowthatthelawyers =  clienthas,duringthecourseofthelawyersrepresentation,f  g perpetratedafrauduponthetribunalf  Ԁg  & v orotherwisecommittedanoffenseagainsttheadministrationofjusticeinconnectionwith  _ proceeding,shall:  H g f  g   f  g (f  g f  g 1f  g )requestpermissionofthetribunaltowithdrawfromtherepresentationoftheclient; f  g       f  g and    f  g f  g 0  (f  g f  g 2f  g )shallinformthetribunal,withoutfurtherdisclosureofinformationprotectedbyRule   f  g f  g 1.6,thatthelawyer'srequesttowithdrawisrequiredbytheRulesofProfessional n  f  g f  g Conduct;and#X%XX2X%ϝ#2X%XXX%W (#(# c  (e)Ifalawyerknowsthatthelawyersclientintendstoperpetrateafrauduponthetribunalf  g Ԁor )y otherwisecommitanoffenseagainsttheadministrationofjusticeinconnectionwiththe b proceeding,includingimproperconducttowardajurororamemberofthejurypool,#X%XX2X%ޢ#2X%XXX%Ԁorcomesto K know,priortotheconclusionoftheproceeding,thattheclienthas,duringthecourseofthe 4 lawyersrepresentation,f  g perpetratedsuchacrimeorfraud,#X%XX2X%#thelawyershalladvisetheclientto  refrainfrom,ortodiscloseorotherwiserectify,thecrimeorfraudandshallconsultwiththe  clientabouttheconsequencesoftheclient'sfailuretodoso. 72X%XXX%  ( f1)Ifalawyer,afterconsultationwiththeclientasrequiredbyparagraph(e),knowsthatthe q clientstillintendstof  g perpetratethecrimeorfraud,f  g #X%XX2X%#orrefusesorisunabletodiscloseorotherwise Z rectifythecrimeorfraud,2X%XXX%thelawyershallf  g f  g seekpermissionofthetribunaltowithdrawfromthe C representationf  g oftheclientandshallinformthetribunal,withoutfurtherdisclosureof ,| informationprotectedbyRule1.6,thatthelawyer'srequesttowithdrawisrequiredbytheRules e ofProfessionalConduct. N (g)Alawyerwho,priortoconclusionoftheproceeding,comestoknow#X%XX2X%Ө#2X%XXX%Ԁthatthelawyerhas !   offeredfalsetangibleordocumentaryevidenceshallwithdrawordisaffirmsuchevidence " ! withoutfurtherdisclosureofinformationprotectedbyRulef  g f  g 1.6.#X%XX2X%#2X%XXX% #"  Z #X%XX2X%_#2X%XXX% (h)  (e)  Alawyerwho,priortotheconclusionoftheproceeding,comestoknowthataperson t% $ otherthantheclienthasf  g perpetratedafrauduponthetribunalf  orotherwisecommittedanoffense ]&!% againsttheadministrationofjusticeinconnectionwiththeproceeding,andinwhichthe F'"& lawyersclientwasnotimplicated,shallf  Ԁ promptlyreporttheimproperconducttothetribunal, /(#' f  g evenifsodoingrequiresthedisclosureofinformationotherwiseprotectedbyRule1.6. Ԁ :  )h$(  #X%XX2X%Ԭ#(1)promptlyseektheclient'sconsenttodisclosureoftheperjury,fraud,oroffensetothe a2X%XXX% *:&*  +#'+ #X%XX2X%#0  Ԁtribunalandshallconsultwiththeclientabouttheconsequencesofafailuretoso @   consent;and(#(#  0  (2)iftheclientrefusesorisunabletoconsenttothedisclosureoftheperjury,fraud,or k offense,thelawyershallpromptlyreporttheimproperconducttothetribunal,evenifso T doingrequiresthedisclosureofinformationotherwiseprotectedbyRule1.6. 2X%XXX%= (#(# `#X%XX2X%V#2X%XXX% (_i_)  (f) BAlawyerwho,priortoconclusionoftheproceeding,comestoknowofimproperconduct  _ byortowardajurororamemberofthejurypoolshallreporttheimproperconducttothe  H tribunal,evenifsodoingrequiresthedisclosureofinformationotherwiseprotectedbyRule1.6.  1  f  g #X%XX2X%˳#2X%XXX%#X%XX2X% # ʵ(g)Priortoseekingpermissiontowithdrawfromtherepresentationofaclientasrequiredby   paragraphs(c)or(d),orrevealingaclientsmisconductasmayberequiredbyparagraph(f),the   lawyershalladvisetheclienttorefrainfrom,ortodiscloseorotherwiserectify,themisconduct   andconsultwiththeclientabouttheconsequencesoftheclient'sfailuretodoso.g 2X%XXX% n  f  fg (j) (f  g f  g hf  g ) If,inresponsetoalawyer'srequesttowithdrawfromtherepresentationoftheclientorthe @ lawyer'sreportofaperjury,fraud,oroffenseagainsttheadministrationofjusticebyaperson )y otherthanthelawyer'sclient,atribunalrequestsadditionalinformationwhichthelawyercan b onlyprovidebydisclosinginformationprotectedbyRule1.6or1.9(c),thelawyershallcomply K withtherequest,butonlyiffinallyorderedtodosobythetribunalafterthelawyerhasasserted 4 onbehalfoftheclientallnonfrivolousclaimsthattheinformationsoughtbythetribunalis  protectedbytheattorneyclientprivilege.  f  #X%XX2X%G# 2X%XXX% g   COMMENT     [1]ThisRulegovernstheconductofalawyerwhoisrepresentingaclientinconnection [ withtheproceedingsofatribunal,suchasacourtoranadministrativeagencyactinginan D adjudicativecapacity.Itappliesnotonlywhenthelawyerappearsbeforethetribunal,butalso -} whenthelawyerparticipatesinactivitiesconductedpursuanttothetribunalsauthority,suchas f pretrialdiscoveryinacivilmatter. O   [2]Theadvocate'staskistopresenttheclient'scasewithpersuasiveforce.Performance !!  ofthatdutywhilemaintainingconfidencesoftheclientisqualifiedbytheadvocate'sdutyto " ! refrainfromassistingaclienttoperpetrateafrauduponthetribunal.However,anadvocatedoes #" notvouchfortheevidencesubmittedinacause;thetribunalisresponsibleforassessingits $# probativevalue. u% $    RepresentationsbyaLawyer  G'"&    [3]Anadvocateisresponsibleforpleadingsandotherdocumentspreparedforlitigation, )j$( butisusuallynotrequiredtohavepersonalknowledgeofmattersassertedtherein,forlitigation *S%) documentsordinarilypresentassertionsbytheclient,orbysomeoneontheclient'sbehalf,and *<&* notassertionsbythelawyer.CompareRule3.1.However,anassertionpurportingtobeonthe +%'+ lawyer'sownknowledge,asinanaffidavitbythelawyerorinastatementinopencourt,may  properlybemadeonlywhenthelawyerknowstheassertionistrueorbelievesittobetrueonthe  basisofareasonablydiligentinquiry.Therearecircumstanceswherefailuretomakea  disclosureistheequivalentofanaffirmativemisrepresentation.Theobligationprescribedin k Rule1.2(d)nottocounselaclienttocommit,orassisttheclientincommittingafraud,appliesin T litigation.RegardingcompliancewithRule1.2(d),seetheCommenttothatRule.Seealsothe =  CommenttoRule8.4(b). & v    MisleadingLegalArgument   H   [4]Legalargumentbasedonaknowinglyfalserepresentationoflawconstitutes    dishonestytowardthetribunal.Alawyerisnotrequiredtomakeadisinterestedexpositionofthe   law,butmustrecognizetheexistenceofpertinentlegalauthorities.Furthermore,asstatedin   paragraph(a)(2),anadvocatehasadutytodisclosedirectlyadverseauthorityinthecontrolling   jurisdictionwhichhasnotbeendisclosedbytheopposingparty.Theunderlyingconceptisthat o  legalargumentisadiscussionseekingtodeterminethelegalpremisesproperlyapplicabletothe X  case. A    f  ExParteProceedings  *z B  [5] [7] Ordinarily,anadvocatehasthelimitedresponsibilityofpresentingonesideofthe M mattersthatatribunalshouldconsiderinreachingadecision;theconflictingpositionisexpected 6 tobepresentedbytheopposingparty.However,inanexparteproceeding,suchasan  applicationforatemporaryrestrainingorder,thereisnobalanceofpresentationbyopposing  advocates.Theobjectofanexparteproceedingisneverthelesstoyieldasubstantiallyjustresult.  Thejudgehasanaffirmativeresponsibilitytoaccordtheabsentpartyjustconsideration. As  providedinparagraph(a)(3) Z, T  t helawyerfortherepresentedpartyhasthecorrelativedutyto s makedisclosuresofmaterialfactsknowntothelawyerandthatthelawyerreasonablybelieves \ arenecessarytoaninformeddecision.#X%XX2X%#2X%XXX%  E  g )  @  @`  @  @ RefusingtoOffer orUseFalse ԀEvidence  h   [6] [5] Whenevidencethatalawyerknowstobefalseisprovidedbyapersonwhoisnot  ; theclient,thelawyermustrefusetoofferitregardlessoftheclient'swishes.Thelawyermust !$  similarlyrefusetoofferaclientstestimonythatthelawyerknowstobefalse,exceptthat " ! paragraph(b)permitsthelawyertoallowacriminaldefendanttotestifybywayofnarrativeif #" thelawyersrequesttowithdraw ,asrequire