| LEO Num | Topics | Summary | Date |
ABA-502
 Print
|
| “Prose lawyers represent themselves as ‘a client,’ [and thus must comply with Rule 4.2’s ex parte communication limitations] and direct pro se lawyer-to represented person communication in such circumstances can result in a substantial risk of overreaching, disruption of the represented person’s client-lawyer relationship, and acquisition of uncounselled disclosures.” A dissent suggests revising Rule 4.2, noting that state courts in Connecticut and Kansas, and a Texas LEO took the opposite position. | 9/28/2022 |
1504
Print
|
| A lawyer and the lawyer's employee may seek information under the Freedom of Information Act from the state, even if the lawyer is representing a client adverse to the state. | 12/14/1992 |
0529
Print
|
| A lawyer may directly contact a member of a county Board of Supervisors even if the lawyer knows that the county attorney represents the Board, because limitations on contacting an adversary do not restrict petitions to a legislative body. | 9/13/1983 |
1537
Print
|
| A lawyer representing a child and parents adverse to a school board may directly contact school board employees who are not in a position to bind the school board. "The rule prohibiting an attorney's communication with adverse parties should be narrowly construed in the context of litigation with the government in order to permit reasonable access to witnesses for the purpose of uncovering evidence, particularly where no formal discovery processes exist." | 6/22/1993 |
0777
Print
|
| A lawyer suing a county board may not contact a board member, but may contact county employees if they are "not charged with the responsibility of executing board policy" (citing Upjohn). | 4/22/1986 |
ABA-408
Print
|
| Although generally a lawyer may not have ex parte contacts with a represented government entity, the constitutional right to petition allows a lawyer to establish such ex parte contacts if the official has authority to "take or recommend action on the controversy, and the sole purpose of the communication . . . is to address a policy issue, including settling the controversy." Moreover, the lawyer must give advance notice of such contact to the government lawyer and provide copies of any written materials to be presented to the government official. | 8/2/1997 |
0964
Print
|
| An Assistant Attorney General employed in the support division represents the state (not any custodial or non-custodial parents), and must disclose this fact to any parents with whom the Assistant Attorney General works. The Attorney General represents Virginia departments as units, and the representation includes the department's employees when acting within the scope of their employment. Plaintiff's lawyers (including legal aid lawyers) must comply with the rules governing contacts with adversaries when litigating with the government. | 3/1/1988 |
1891
Print
|
| Lawyers may communicate ex parte with “a narrow subset of government officials” – as long as “the communication is made for the purpose of addressing a policy issue, and the government official being addressed has the ability or authority to take or recommend government action, or otherwise effectuate government policy on the issue.” This freedom does not depend on whether the government official is in the “control group” or not (which governs non-governmental contexts), but rather whether the communication is “authorized by law” (such as “a citizen’s right to petition a legislative body). Absent some applicable exception, lawyers “may not communicate with a represented government official solely for the purposes of gathering evidence.” There is no need for the communicating lawyer to alert the government’s lawyer about such ex parte communications with government officials. | 1/9/2020 |