Can a lawyer contact the opposing party directly about one part of a case when that party's lawyer was appointed only for a different part?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1996. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Opinion 263 (adopted January 17, 1996) arose in the domestic violence context. A lawyer represented victims who had obtained a Civil Protection Order (CPO) in Superior Court. When a CPO is violated, the petitioner may move for criminal contempt against the respondent in the same action, and may separately move to modify the CPO. If the respondent is indigent, the court appoints counsel, who (because the Criminal Justice Act appointment is so limited) usually represents the respondent only on the contempt motion and not on the CPO modification. The two motions typically share common facts, namely the alleged violation of the CPO. The inquirer asked whether she could communicate directly with the respondent about the modification proceeding, and whether a contempt motion could be used to obtain the respondent's consent to a stronger CPO.
On the first question, the committee concluded that the litigation was a single "matter" for purposes of Rule 4.2(a) because the modification and contempt motions shared common facts, evidence, and legal questions, so the petitioner's lawyer could not communicate directly with the respondent about the modification without the consent of the respondent's appointed counsel, even though that counsel's engagement was limited to the contempt motion. The committee drew on ABA Opinion 95-396 and on Comment [3] to Rule 1.7 in reading "matter" as a particular litigation. It added that where the respondent's lawyer withholds consent, that lawyer cannot use Rule 4.2(a) and the limited scope of the engagement to block all communication; instead the lawyer must receive the communication and transmit it to the client, and failing to do so would violate Rule 1.4.
On the second question, the committee concluded that a criminal contempt proceeding in a CPO matter is not a "criminal charge" within the meaning of Rule 8.4(g). It read "criminal charges" by their ordinary meaning in substantive law and noted that, under District of Columbia authority, a criminal contempt proceeding is not a criminal prosecution (citing Beckham and Matter of Wiggins). Because criminal contempt is itself a remedy available to enforce a court's order in a civil matter, the committee concluded that seeking or threatening it to gain advantage in the CPO modification does not violate Rule 8.4(g)'s bar on seeking criminal charges solely to obtain advantage in a civil matter.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1996, 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: Can a lawyer contact the opposing party directly about a part of the case that party's lawyer is not handling?
A: No, under this opinion, where the two parts of the litigation share common issues. The committee concluded the litigation was a single "matter" under Rule 4.2(a), so contact required the consent of the party's appointed counsel even though that counsel's role was limited to the contempt motion.
Q: What must the limited-scope lawyer do if they refuse consent to direct contact?
A: The committee concluded that the respondent's lawyer must then receive the communication from opposing counsel and transmit it to the client, and that failing to do so would violate Rule 1.4. The lawyer cannot invoke Rule 4.2(a) to cut off communication entirely.
Q: Does filing a criminal contempt motion to gain leverage in a CPO case violate Rule 8.4(g)?
A: No. The committee concluded that a criminal contempt proceeding is not a "criminal charge" under District of Columbia law, so seeking or threatening it to gain advantage in the related civil CPO modification does not violate Rule 8.4(g).
Q: When did the committee treat two motions as the same "matter"?
A: When they share common facts. The committee reasoned that the CPO modification and the criminal contempt motion both turned on what the respondent did in violation of the CPO, so they were facets of one matter rather than separate matters.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interpreted D.C. Rule 4.2(a) (communication with a party represented by counsel) and the meaning of "matter" within it, drawing on the use of "matter" in the conflicts rules (Rules 1.7, 1.9, 1.10) and on the limited-representation guidance in Comment [4] to Rule 1.2. It applied Rule 1.4 (keeping a client reasonably informed) to the limited-scope lawyer's duty to relay communications, and Rule 8.4(g) (seeking or threatening criminal charges solely to obtain advantage in a civil matter) to the use of a criminal contempt motion.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- D.C. RPC 4.2(a) / Model Rule 4.2 (communication with a represented person)
- D.C. RPC 1.4(a) / Model Rule 1.4 (keeping the client informed)
- D.C. RPC 8.4(g) / Model Rule 8.4 (misconduct; the D.C. rule's criminal-charge clause has no Model Rule counterpart)
- D.C. RPC 1.2 / Model Rule 1.2 (limited scope of representation, Comment [4])
Statutes:
- D.C. Code § 16-1005 (civil protection orders; criminal contempt for violation)
Cases:
- Carter v. Kanaras, 430 A.2d 1058 (R.I. 1981), purpose of the no-contact rule
- Beckham v. United States, 609 A.2d 1122 (D.C. 1992), criminal contempt is not a criminal prosecution
- Matter of Wiggins, 359 A.2d 579 (D.C. 1976), nature of criminal contempt
Other opinions cited:
- ABA Formal Op. 95-396 (1995): meaning of "matter" and communications with represented persons
See also
- ABA Formal Op. 95-396: Communications With Represented Persons
- DC Ethics Op. 373: Court-Ordered Counsel in Criminal DV and Parallel CPO Cases
- DC Ethics Op. 280: Direct Communications With Members of a Government Board
- ABA Formal Op. 472: Communicating With a Limited-Scope Client
Source
- Landing page: https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/ethics-opinions-210-present/ethics-opinion-263
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1996 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.