Must a Connecticut lawyer report a suspected conflict or possible future court misrepresentation by another lawyer?

Plain-English summary

The requesting lawyer represented one heir in litigation arising from alleged undue influence over the heirs' mother. Another lawyer had represented a second heir against a third heir, then appeared to represent both of those former opponents in a pending foreclosure. The requester suspected a conflict and possible future misrepresentations in the foreclosure or probate proceedings.

Rule 8.3(a) imposes a reporting duty only when a lawyer knows that another lawyer has committed a Rules violation and the violation raises a substantial question about that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness. Rule 1.0 defines knowledge as actual knowledge, although circumstances may support an inference of it. The words "possible," "potential," and "reason to suspect" did not satisfy that threshold.

The facts also did not support an inference of actual knowledge. The formerly opposing heirs might now have aligned interests against the lender, and the record did not establish either a Rule 1.7(a) conflict or the absence of consent under Rule 1.7(b). The family's litigation history and alleged misconduct supported only subjective suspicion about the heirs, not knowledge that their lawyer violated a Rule.

The second threshold was independently unmet. Nothing about the possible conflict or suspected future misrepresentation suggested a violation serious enough to raise a substantial question about the other lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness.

In practice

Under this opinion, Rule 8.3(a) does not require a report based solely on suspected, possible, or future misconduct. The opinion distinguishes that reporting rule from Rule 3.3(b), which may require remedial measures if a lawyer comes to know of fraudulent conduct related to a proceeding.

Common questions

Q: Does suspicion of a possible conflict trigger Rule 8.3(a)?

A: No. The reporting lawyer must have actual knowledge, which may be inferred from circumstances, that a violation has already occurred.

Q: Did the other lawyer's representation of former opponents prove a conflict?

A: No. The earlier case was over, the parties might have become aligned in the pending matters, and the record did not show whether any conflict existed or was unwaived.

Q: Is every known Rules violation reportable?

A: No. The violation also must raise a substantial question about honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer.

Q: What if the requester later learns of fraud connected to the proceeding?

A: The Committee stated that Rule 3.3(b) would require reasonable remedial measures, including disclosure to the tribunal if necessary, if the lawyer came to know of such fraudulent conduct.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies both thresholds in Rule 8.3(a): knowledge of a completed violation and seriousness bearing substantially on professional honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness. It separately discusses Rules 1.7(a) and (b) only to explain why the facts did not establish knowledge of an unwaived concurrent conflict.

Citations and references

Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Rules 1.0, 1.7(a), 1.7(b), 3.3(b), and 8.3(a)

Other opinions cited:

• Connecticut Informal Opinions 96-20, 11-06, 05-11, 04-13, 01-04, and 94-33

Other authorities:

• Hazard & Hodes, The Law of Lawyering § 8.3:201, at 945 (2d ed. 1996)

See also

• CT Informal Op. 25-04: Reporting a regulatory chair
• VSB Op. 1004: Crime and substantial fitness question
• VSB Op. 1566: Government lawyer's suspicion

Source

• Landing page: Connecticut Bar Association Informal Ethics Opinions
• Original PDF: Informal Opinion 13-05