Okay
A recent ethics opinion from the New York State Bar Association found that a lawyer may limit contact with a difficult client provided that the lawyer maintain prompt communication and consultation with the client on matters within the lawyer’s duty of communication. Okay
The committee further noted that the lawyer may seek to withdraw from representation if communications between the lawyer and client continue to break down.
The opinion came in response to an inquiry from an attorney appointed as counsel for an individual who was charged with several criminal offenses. The client, who had received treatment for ongoing mental health issues, was previously represented by many other attorney’s. The committee noted that rule 1.14 requires lawyers to “as far as reasonably possible” maintain a normal relationship with diminished capacity clients, but also permits them to take protective action if they believe the client is at risk of physical, financial, or other harm. In the opinion, the committee quoted NY Bar Ethics Opinion 986, which states that “any protective action taken by the lawyer should be limited to what is essential to carry out the representation. Thus, the lawyer may consult with family members, friends, other individuals, agencies or programs that have the ability to take action to protect the client.”
According to the lawyer, the client was physically intimidating, verbally abusive, and often non-responsive. The opinion stated that the lawyer may place “reasonable limitations” on the timing and manner of communications and hence, is not prevented from limiting contact to scheduled appointments and written communications. In reaching this conclusion, the committee reasoned that “other than the general requirement that developments in the case and responses to requests be promptly communicated,” rule 1.4 does not restrict the lawyer’s freedom to schedule the specific timing of communications with his client.
The lawyer also asked about the appropriateness of withdrawing from the representation should the client decline to abide by these limitations. Rule 1.16 states that lawyers can withdraw, with approval from the court, if withdrawal doesn’t adversely affect the client’s interests, and if there are good reasons for withdrawal. If the client makes it unreasonably difficult for the lawyer to effectively carry out the representation, withdrawal is appropriate. According to the committee, “if the client’s verbal abuse and non-responsiveness result in a collapse of meaningful communication, then effective representation is almost certainly not possible.”
Read the full opinion here.
Okay Okay Okay
