Ezel / Ethics Opinions / CTBAR

May a Connecticut lawyer knowingly sign a noncompliant home-improvement contract for the lawyer's own home?

Short answer Only if the lawyer has no intent to use the known defect to avoid the contract later. Signing while preserving that tactic would involve deceit or misrepresentation under Rule 8.4(3).
Bar
CTBAR
Issued
January 21, 2015
Source
View Original PDF

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.

Currency note: this opinion is from 2015
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

A lawyer planning an addition to the lawyer's home received a contract known to be noncompliant with Connecticut's Home Improvement Act. The Act made a noncompliant contract invalid and unenforceable against the owner, subject to a judicially recognized bad-faith exception when the owner knew of the defect.

Rule 8.4(3) applies to a lawyer's personal and business conduct and prohibits dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Because signing a contract implies an intent to enter a binding agreement, signing while planning to preserve the statutory defect as a future escape would contain deceit or misrepresentation.

The Committee reaches the opposite conclusion when the lawyer has no intent to deceive or gain an unfair advantage and intends to waive the noncompliance defense if a dispute develops.

In practice

Under this opinion, the ethical issue is the lawyer's intent at signing. Knowledge of the defect does not alone violate Rule 8.4(3), but signing as though the agreement is binding while planning to invoke the defect later does.

Common questions

Q: Is signing any noncompliant home-improvement contract unethical?

A: No. The opinion permits signing when the lawyer has no deceptive intent and will not use the defect to gain an unfair advantage.

Q: What conduct violates Rule 8.4(3)?

A: Signing while intending to preserve the contract's invalidity as a defense in a later dispute.

Q: Do the Rules govern a lawyer's personal home transaction?

A: Yes. The opinion cites the Preamble's statement that a lawyer's conduct should conform to law in professional, business, and personal affairs.

Background and rules framework

Rule 8.4(3) prohibits conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. The opinion applies that rule alongside the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and the Home Improvement Act's enforceability provisions.

Citations and references

Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Rule 8.4(3) and Preamble, A Lawyer's Responsibilities

Statutes:

  • Connecticut Home Improvement Act, Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 20-418 et seq. and 20-429(a)

Cases:

  • Liljendahl Bros. v. Grigsby, 215 Conn. 345 (1990), noncompliant home-improvement contract
  • Habetz v. Condon, 224 Conn. 501, 505 (1992), bad-faith exception

See also

Source

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