Ethics Advisory Opinions

(Approved February 25, 1993)

Issue: May an attorney give a "second opinion" on a legal matter, when approached by a non-client who is represented by counsel?

August 25, 2004

1 Issue: In litigation to enforce an oral contract allegedly made by a corporate defendant’s former employee on behalf of the corporation, where the former employee was not a member of the control group, may the plaintiff’s attorney contact the ex-employee without the consent of the corporate defendant’s attorney?

December 2, 2004

Issue: Under what circumstances is it permissible for corporate counsel to assert that counsel concurrently represents present and former corporate employees whose testimony is relevant to a claim and ethically preclude opposing counsel’s access to those corporate employee witnesses?

(Approved December 1, 2000)

¶ 1 Issue: Where a defendant is being represented by a lawyer appointed by defendant’s insurance carrier prior to the entry of any judgment against the defendant, would it be ethical for plaintiff’s lawyer to convey a settlement offer proposing that plaintiff take an assignment of any bad-faith claim that the defendant might have against the insurance carrier in exchange for plaintiff’s agreement not to execute against defendant for amounts exceeding the insurance policy limits?

(Approved August 7, 1998)

Issue: May the lawyer for the plaintiff in a personal-injury case directly contact the adjuster for defendant's insurer without first obtaining the consent of the defendant's attorney?

(Approved April 26, 1996)

Issue: May a lawyer representing a defendant in multiple lawsuits asserting similar claims initiate and conduct ex parte communications with former plaintiffs who have settled their claims?

(Approved January 26, 1996)

Issue. What is the relationship between Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2 and a 1994 U.S. Department of Justice regulation purporting to authorize certain ex parte contacts with persons known to be represented by counsel?

Issue No. 2: Assuming that the Regulation does not constitute a "law" for purposes of Rule 4.2, under what conditions may a government lawyer make ex parte contact with persons known to be represented by counsel?

Issue No. 1: Is the definition of "represented party" in § 77.3(a) of the Regulation consistent with the definition of "party" in Rule 4.2 of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct? In other words, does Rule 4.2 apply only to ex parte contacts with a party in an adversary proceeding.

Issue No. 2: Assuming that the Regulation does not constitute a "law" for purposes of Rule 4.2, under what conditions may a government lawyer make ex parte contact with persons known to be represented by counsel?