DCBAR September 20, 1995

Can a lawyer who is representing herself in a case contact the opposing party directly when that party has a lawyer?

Short answer: The opinion concluded that a lawyer who is a party and proceeding pro se still may not communicate directly with another party known to be represented by counsel about the subject of the matter without the other lawyer's consent. The parties-may-talk-to-each-other principle does not create an exception, because a pro se lawyer keeps a presumptively unfair advantage; the only carve-out is for disputes a non-lawyer would not ordinarily hire counsel to handle.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1995. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.

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 Not binding precedent.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) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

Opinion 258 (adopted September 20, 1995) addressed whether a lawyer who is a party and proceeding pro se may communicate directly with another represented party in the same matter without that party's lawyer's consent. Rule 4.2(a), the "no-contact" rule, bars a lawyer, during the course of representing a client, from communicating about the subject of the representation with a party known to be represented by another lawyer, absent consent or legal authorization. Comment [1] states that parties may communicate directly with each other, raising the question of how that freedom applies when one party is a lawyer.

The committee concluded that a lawyer proceeding pro se must comply with Rule 4.2(a) and may not communicate directly with a represented opposing party about the subject of the matter without the other lawyer's consent. It reasoned that Rule 4.2 exists to prevent a lawyer from using education and training to overwhelm a lay party, coax a statement or settlement, or cause inadvertent disclosure of privileged information, and that those concerns are equally present when the lawyer doing the coaxing is a pro se lawyer-party. A lawyer has the right to represent herself, but she brings her professional skills and legal knowledge to every dealing with a lay adversary, so she retains a presumptively unfair advantage whether acting in her "lawyer" or her "party" capacity.

The committee read Comment [1] not as an exception to Rule 4.2 but as a reflection of the tradition that parties may settle disputes directly, a right that is not absolute and does not permit duress, harassment, or overbearing conduct. To avoid absurd results, the committee excluded situations in which a non-lawyer ordinarily would not consult or retain counsel, giving the examples of a lawyer-consumer dealing with a dry cleaner, a lawyer-neighbor handling a noisy pet or a fallen tree, or a lawyer-citizen writing to a company's chief executive. Once a dispute matures to the point where a person would ordinarily retain counsel, however, the lawyer-party must treat herself as covered by Rule 4.2.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995, before the District of Columbia's adoption of the 2007 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Does the no-contact rule apply to a lawyer representing herself?

A: Yes, in a matter that has reached the point where a party would ordinarily have counsel. The committee concluded a pro se lawyer must obtain the opposing lawyer's consent before contacting the represented party about the subject of the matter.

Q: Doesn't Comment [1] let parties talk to each other directly?

A: The committee concluded that Comment [1] reflects the tradition that parties may communicate, but does not create an exception to Rule 4.2 when one party is a lawyer, because the lawyer-party retains a presumptively unfair advantage.

Q: Are there situations where a pro se lawyer can contact the other side directly?

A: Yes. The committee excluded disputes a non-lawyer would not ordinarily hire counsel to handle, such as a complaint to a dry cleaner, a neighbor, or a company's executive, but said the rule applies once a dispute matures to where a person would ordinarily retain counsel.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted D.C. Rule 4.2(a) (communication with a party represented by counsel) and its Comment [1] (parties may communicate directly). The committee noted that the Model Rules and the D.C. Rules do not speak directly to pro se representation, and resolved the gap by reading Rule 4.2 in light of its purpose and the broader conduct rules that bar harassment of opponents.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

D.C. RPC 4.2(a) and Comment [1] / Model Rule 4.2 (communication with a represented person)

Cases:

Wright v. Group Health Hospital, 691 P.2d 564 (Wash. 1984), purpose of the no-contact rule
Lawson v. Nevada Power Co., 739 F. Supp. 23 (D.D.C. 1990), certain disciplinary rules and the pro se lawyer
Lewis v. S.S. Baune, 534 F.2d 1115 (3d Cir. 1976), no settlement through duress or harassment

Other opinions cited:

D.C. Bar Op. 80 (1979): the no-contact rule and direct communications

Source

Landing page: https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/ethics-opinions-210-present/ethics-opinion-258

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1995 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.