May a civil lawyer ask a DUI defendant for a true admission in return for the victim not opposing diversion?
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
The lawyer represented a person injured by a drunk driver in both a personal-injury claim and the related criminal proceeding. The prosecutor had already charged the driver, who appeared eligible for a pretrial alcohol-education program. The client would refrain from objecting if the driver signed a true statement accepting responsibility.
Rule 3.4(7) prohibits presenting or threatening criminal charges solely for civil advantage. It did not apply because neither the client nor lawyer initiated or threatened the existing DUI charge, and the lawyer participated as the victim's advocate. A civil benefit did not make the position improper when the client also had legitimate reasons to require acceptance of responsibility.
The Committee also finds no violation of Rules 8.4(2) or (4), assuming a good-faith basis to object and a direct relationship between the DUI proceeding and civil claim. The opinion contrasts unrelated criminal allegations, claims lacking a well-founded basis, and attempts to exert improper influence over the criminal process.
In practice
Under this opinion, simultaneous criminal and civil proceedings are not prohibited merely because a position in the criminal case benefits the civil claim. The analysis turns on who initiated the charges, whether legitimate criminal-case interests exist, and whether the position has a good-faith basis.
Common questions
Q: Did the lawyer threaten to bring criminal charges?
A: No. A prosecutor had already charged the defendant, and the lawyer appeared as advocate for the victim.
Q: Does a benefit to the civil case violate Rule 3.4(7)?
A: Not by itself. The Rule applies when criminal charges are pursued solely to obtain civil advantage.
Q: Why could the client condition nonopposition on an admission?
A: The opinion assumes legitimate reasons to seek acceptance of responsibility and a good-faith basis to object to diversion otherwise.
Q: When could the conduct violate Rule 8.4?
A: The cited ABA analysis identifies unrelated alleged wrongdoing, claims the lawyer does not believe well founded, or improper influence over the criminal process.
Background and rules framework
Rule 3.4(7) addresses criminal charges used solely for civil advantage. Rules 8.4(2) and (4) address criminal acts reflecting on fitness and conduct prejudicial to justice, while Rule 3.1 requires a nonfrivolous basis for the position taken.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Connecticut Rules 3.4(7), 8.4(2), 8.4(4), and 3.1
- ABA Model Rule 8.4
Statutes:
- Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 54-56g and 14-227a
Cases:
- Somers v. Statewide Grievance Committee, 245 Conn. 277, 292 (1998), simultaneous criminal complaint and civil action
Other opinions cited:
- Connecticut Informal Opinion 98-19, criminal complaint and civil action
- ABA Formal Opinion 92-363, threats of criminal charges related to a civil claim
See also
- Maine Ethics Op. 100: Grievance threat in malpractice settlement
- CT Informal Op. 15-01: No settlement bar on reporting misconduct
Source
- Landing page: Connecticut Bar Association Informal Ethics Opinions
- Original PDF: Informal Opinion 15-05
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