Can a lawyer acting for themselves contact a company's management directly when the company regularly uses counsel?

Plain-English summary

The Committee was asked whether a lawyer, acting on the lawyer's own behalf on a matter not in litigation, may communicate directly with management of a corporation or institution the lawyer knows or should know is regularly represented by counsel. It concludes such contact is not improper, so long as the lawyer has not been advised to deal only with the entity's counsel on that matter.

The opinion frames the issue with everyday examples: a lawyer-consumer with a product complaint to a company that uses counsel, a lawyer-reader objecting to a newspaper's editorial policy, a lawyer-homeowner concerned about a municipal permit. Applying Rule 4.2, it works through three questions. First, does Rule 4.2 apply when the lawyer's "client" is herself? Yes; following Opinion 95-7, a lawyer representing herself is still bound by Rule 4.2 and is not a free "party." Second, what does it mean to "know" the institution is represented on a particular matter? Under Rule 9.1(f), "knowing" means actual knowledge (which may be inferred); knowing an entity has a legal department or usually retains counsel does not establish that it is represented on this particular new matter, though being told the matter was assigned to a lawyer, or receiving an entry of appearance, does.

Third, does the communication concern a "matter" that is "the subject of the representation"? The opinion notes Rule 4.2's commentary permits communication on matters outside the representation, and an initial contact to get information or resolve a conflict informally rarely involves a matter known to be the subject of representation. So a lawyer, for herself or a client, ordinarily may contact an institution that regularly retains counsel to seek information or resolve a problem informally, since such early contacts often resolve a potential dispute before it becomes a "matter." The opinion concludes that until the lawyer knows opposing counsel has been asked to handle the particular new matter, the lawyer is not barred from dealing directly with the entity's representatives, and it expressly does not address which employees may be contacted once the entity is represented on a matter.

In practice

Under this opinion, as the Alaska rules stood at the time, a lawyer acting on the lawyer's own behalf on a non-litigation matter may contact a regularly-represented organization's management directly to seek information or resolve a problem informally, because at that early stage there is usually no "matter" that is "the subject of the representation." The opinion treats Rule 4.2 as applying to a self-represented lawyer, defines "knowing" as actual knowledge under Rule 9.1(f), and draws the line at the point where the lawyer knows the entity's counsel has been asked to handle the particular new matter, after which direct contact on that matter is barred.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer, as a consumer, complain directly to a company that has counsel?

A: Usually yes. The opinion concludes a self-represented lawyer may contact the entity's management directly on a non-litigation matter unless told to deal only with its counsel on that matter.

Q: Does Rule 4.2 apply when the lawyer represents only themselves?

A: Yes. The opinion follows Opinion 95-7: a lawyer representing herself is still bound by Rule 4.2 and is not treated as a free "party."

Q: When does the lawyer "know" the entity is represented on the matter?

A: Per the opinion and Rule 9.1(f), when the lawyer has actual knowledge, for example being told the matter was assigned to a lawyer or receiving an entry of appearance; merely knowing the entity has a legal department is not enough.

Q: At what point must the lawyer stop contacting management directly?

A: The opinion says once the lawyer knows the entity's counsel has been asked to handle that particular matter, direct contact on that matter is barred.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Alaska Rule of Professional Conduct 4.2 (communication with represented persons, analog of Model Rule 4.2) and its commentary's "outside the representation" exception, together with the definition of "knowing" in Rule 9.1(f). It builds on the Committee's Opinions 95-7 (pro se lawyer) and 98-1 (knowing an insurer is represented).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Alaska RPC 4.2 (communication with represented persons) and commentary
• Alaska RPC 9.1(f) (definition of "knowing")

Other opinions cited:

• Alaska Ethics Opinions 95-7 (pro se lawyer) and 98-1

See also

• AK Bar Ethics Op. 2011-2: Contacting Employees of an Opposing Organization
• ABA Formal Op. 95-396: Communications With Represented Persons

Source

• Landing page: https://alaskabar.org/ethics-discipline/ethics-opinions/adopted-ethics-opinions-chronological/
• Original PDF: https://alaskabar.org/wp-content/uploads/2006-1.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

ALASKA BAR ASSOCIATION
ETHICS OPINION 2006-1
Propriety of a Lawyer, Acting on the Lawyer’s Own Behalf Regarding A
Matter Not in Litigation, Communicating Directly with Management of a
Corporation Or Other Institution that the Lawyer Knows or Should Know
is Regularly Represented by Counsel
Introduction
The Committee was asked about the propriety of a lawyer, acting on his
own behalf regarding a matter not in litigation, communicating directly with
management of a corporation or other institution that the lawyer knows or
should know is regularly represented by counsel.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed below, the Committee concludes that such
contact is not improper, so long as the attorney has not been advised that he or
she should deal only with corporate counsel on that matter.
Analysis
Lawyers frequently act on their own behalf as consumers and citizens,
and they interact with private and public institutions that have counsel on staff
or that frequently retain counsel. Each of these situations requires the lawyer
to decide whether he or she may contact employees or managers directly to
address his concern, or whether the lawyer must contact only the institution’s
counsel. For example:


A lawyer has a complaint as a consumer about a product or service
received from a local company that the lawyer knows is regularly
represented by in-house or retained counsel. May the lawyer address his
complaint directly to management of the company, or must the lawyer
communicate only with corporate counsel?



A lawyer, as a newspaper reader, disagrees with the editorial policy of the
local newspaper. She knows that the newspaper regularly retains
counsel. May she contact the editors to discuss the policy, or must she
contact corporate counsel instead?



A lawyer, as homeowner, has a concern about the municipal
government’s failure to issue a building permit for which he applied. He
knows that the municipality has a legal department. May the lawyer

-1-

directly deal with the supervisor of the permitting office, or must the
lawyer communicate only with the municipality’s attorneys?
Alaska Professional Conduct Rule 4.2 prohibits a lawyer, who is
representing a client, from communicating about the subject of the
representation with a party or person the lawyer knows to be represented by
another lawyer in the matter, unless specifically authorized by law or by the
other lawyer. In applying this rule when a lawyer wants to speak with
representatives of a corporation or agency on his or her own behalf, and not on
behalf of a client, the lawyer must answer three questions:
(1)
herself?

Does Rule 4.2 apply in a situation where the attorney’s “client” is

The short answer to this question is “yes.” In Ethics Opinion 95-7, this
Committee concluded that Rule 4.2 applies to a lawyer who is a pro se litigant.
In other words, when representing herself, for purposes of Rule 4.2, the lawyer
may not act as if she is a “party” who is not bound by the ethical rules that
govern lawyers’ contact with represented individuals. Rather, even when
representing herself, a lawyer is subject to the dictates of Rule 4.2.
(2)
What does it mean to “know” that the institution is represented by
counsel on a particular matter?
Alaska Professional Conduct Rule 9.1(f) explains that “knowing,” for
purposes of these rules, “denotes actual knowledge of the fact in question. A
person’s knowledge may be inferred from circumstances.” Knowing that a
company or agency has a legal department or ordinarily retains counsel when
litigation is likely does not establish that the lawyer knows that company or
agency is represented on a particular matter when the lawyer makes his or her
first contact on a new issue.
A lawyer knows that the company or agency is represented on a
particular matter if the lawyer is told by a representative of the company or
agency that the matter has been assigned to a lawyer or referred to the legal
department. Once a suit is filed, receipt of an entry of appearance from
opposing counsel also clearly indicates that the party is now represented on
that matter.
In other situations, the lawyer must be guided by the
circumstances, and, when in doubt, may ask for clarification. Ethics Opinion
No. 98-1 contains further discussion of when a lawyer knows that an
insurance company is represented by counsel.
(3)
Does the communication concern a “matter” that is “the subject of
the representation”?

-2-

Knowing that a company or agency is represented by a lawyer on one
particular matter does not mean the lawyer knows, or must assume, that the
company or agency is represented on a wholly different matter. Thus, the
lawyer may continue to speak directly to employees and managers on topics
unrelated to the matter on which the institution is known to be represented.
The commentary to Rule 4.2 explains:
“This rule does not prohibit
communication with a party, or an employee or agent of a party, concerning
matters outside the representation.
For example, the existence of a
controversy between a government agency and a private party, or between two
organizations, does not prohibit a lawyer for either from communicating
directly with nonlawyer representatives of the other regarding a separate
matter.” The same principle applies to a lawyer representing himself in dealing
with a government agency or private organization.
In the three examples set forth above, the key question posed in each
instance is whether there is a “matter” that is “the subject of the
representation.” An initial contact to attempt to obtain information or to
resolve a conflict informally rarely involves a matter that is known to be the
subject of representation. Consequently, lawyers, representing clients or
themselves, ordinarily are free to contact institutions that regularly retain
counsel in an attempt to obtain information or to resolve a problem informally.
These sorts of contacts frequently resolve a potential dispute long before it
becomes a “matter” that is “the subject of representation.” The above examples
are all worded to suggest the inquiry occurs at the early stage of a consumer or
citizen complaint. Inquiries directed to employees and managers would be
proper in each instance.
Conclusion
The line between permitted contacts at the early stage of a potential
matter and forbidden contacts after a dispute has sharpened and become a
“matter that is the subject of representation” depends on the question
discussed in the preceding section: Until the lawyer knows that an opposing
counsel has been asked by the party to deal with the particular new matter,
the lawyer is not prohibited from dealing directly with representatives of the
party.1
Once an institution is represented by counsel on a particular matter, the
lawyer may still ethically contact some employees or agents of the institution to
discuss that matter, while being prohibited from having direct contact on that
matter with others. This opinion does not address the sometimes complicated
question of distinguishing between the employees of a corporation or agency
who are considered representatives of the opposing party who may not be
contacted on a matter that is the subject of the representation, and typically
lower level employees who are not included within the ethical bar of Rule 4.2.
1

-3-

Approved by the Alaska Bar Association Ethics Committee on December 1,
2005.
Adopted by the Board of Governors on January 27, 2006.

The comment to Rule 4.2 states, “In the case of an organization, this rule
prohibits communications by a lawyer for one party concerning the matter in
representation with persons having a managerial responsibility on behalf of the
organization.”
-4-