May a Connecticut lawyer offer not to report opposing counsel's misconduct as a condition of settling a civil case?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2015. Ask about yours and see what the current Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Counsel in a civil action alleging improper lawyer fee sharing proposed settlement terms that included confidentiality and a promise not to initiate professional discipline. Rule 8.3(a) expressly prohibits conditioning settlement of a civil dispute involving alleged lawyer impropriety on nonreporting.
The result does not depend on which lawyer proposed the clause or whether the accused lawyer views a possible grievance as invalid, frivolous, or harassing. If the reporting duty is independently triggered because the lawyer knows of a violation raising a substantial question about honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness, the lawyer cannot trade away that duty in settlement.
Rule 8.3 does not require every possible violation to be reported. The opinion preserves the Rule 1.6 confidentiality limit and the judgment required when information is hearsay or does not raise the required substantial question. Rule 3.4(7) does not govern the grievance term because it addresses threats of criminal charges, although other rules and criminal law may govern a disciplinary threat used for leverage.
In practice
Under this opinion, a civil settlement may not include a promise that alleged lawyer misconduct will go unreported. The separate question whether Rule 8.3 requires an actual report depends on knowledge, seriousness, and Rule 1.6.
Common questions
Q: Does it matter that the reporting lawyer offered the term?
A: No. The prohibition applies whether one side demands the nonreporting promise or the other volunteers it.
Q: What if the grievance appears frivolous?
A: That does not make a settlement nonreporting clause permissible.
Q: Must every rules violation be reported?
A: No. Rule 8.3(a) reaches violations raising a substantial question about honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness, and Rule 1.6 may prevent disclosure.
Q: Is threatening a grievance prohibited by Rule 3.4(7)?
A: Not under that rule, which is limited to criminal charges. The opinion notes that other rules and criminal law may still apply.
Background and rules framework
Rule 8.3(a) contains both the reporting standard and the express ban on settlement terms suppressing reports. Rule 3.4(7) covers criminal-charge threats used solely for civil advantage, and Rule 1.6 limits disclosure of protected information.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Connecticut Rules 8.3(a), 3.4(7), and 1.6
- ABA Model Rules 3.1, 4.1, and 4.4
Other opinions cited:
- Connecticut Informal Opinion 97-13, agreement not to file a grievance
- ABA Formal Opinion 94-383, threats of disciplinary charges in civil disputes
See also
- Ohio Ethics Op. 2010-003: Grievance-withdrawal settlement condition
- California Formal Op. 2012-185: Settlement and bar-complaint suppression
- Colorado Ethics Op. 56: Malpractice settlement and grievance withdrawal
Source
- Landing page: Connecticut Bar Association Informal Ethics Opinions
- Original PDF: Informal Opinion 15-01
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2015. Ezel checks the current Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace