Can a government agency hold a public informational meeting for claimants, with its lawyers attending, when some claimants are represented by counsel who objects?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1997. 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 274 (adopted September 17, 1997) arose from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), a government-owned corporation that, as statutory trustee of a terminated pension plan, holds public meetings for plan participants to explain the insurance program, describe the limits of the ERISA guarantee, and answer general questions. After PBGC noticed a meeting for participants in a terminated Colorado plan, a lawyer who represented 300 of the beneficiaries demanded that PBGC cancel the meeting, keep its attorneys away, and exclude her clients, asserting that the meeting was an end run around her representation in violation of Rule 4.2(a). A PBGC staff attorney asked the committee whether the rule required any of those steps.
The committee concluded it did not. Rule 4.2(a) bars a lawyer from communicating about the subject of a representation with a represented party without the other lawyer's consent; its purpose is to protect the adversary system by preventing opposing counsel from inducing an unprotected client into admissions or waivers. But the meetings here were initiated by PBGC in its trustee role and conducted by a non-lawyer employee, with the staff attorney attending only to advise that employee. The committee reasoned that the rule does not apply to non-lawyers, and there was no indication that PBGC's attorneys were using non-lawyer staff to accomplish indirectly what the rule would bar them from doing directly. The question thus narrowed to whether the agency's non-lawyer employees could be accompanied by counsel when some audience members were represented, and the committee saw no reason to deprive them of that advice.
The committee added that a claimant's lawyer who knows of such a meeting has her own options: consent to her clients' attendance, attend with them, or advise them not to attend. She could not convert the protective Rule 4.2(a) into an offensive weapon to block a public meeting that addressed only general program information, not individual claims. The committee noted a limit: if a question from the floor were so specific to an individual represented claimant that the staff attorney knew he was represented, prudence might call for deferring the answer to the ordinary claims process. As for PBGC's non-lawyer field benefit administrators (contractors who handle front-line participant services), the committee concluded the rule does not reach them either, unless an agency attorney used them to circumvent a claimant's counsel, which was not present here.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1997, 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: Could the claimants' lawyer force the agency to cancel the meeting?
A: No. The committee concluded a lawyer cannot use Rule 4.2(a) to block a government agency from holding a public meeting that provides general program information and answers general questions.
Q: Could the agency's lawyers attend and speak at the meeting?
A: Yes. The committee concluded the staff attorney's attendance to advise the non-lawyer presenter is incidental and permissible, and the attorney may even answer a general question, unless drawn into an individualized discussion with a claimant known to be represented.
Q: Why doesn't Rule 4.2(a) bar the meeting?
A: The committee reasoned that the rule does not apply to the agency's non-lawyer employees who run the meeting, and there was no sign that agency attorneys were using non-lawyers to do indirectly what the rule would forbid them to do directly.
Q: What about the agency's outside contractors who handle claimant services?
A: The committee concluded the rule does not reach the non-lawyer field benefit administrators either, unless an agency attorney used them to communicate with a represented claimant in order to circumvent the claimant's lawyer.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interpreted D.C. Rule 4.2(a) (no communication with a represented party about the subject of the representation without the other lawyer's consent or legal authorization), focusing on its inapplicability to non-lawyer agency employees and contractors and on its purpose as a protection of the adversary system rather than a bar on public agency communications. It situated the analysis against the agency's statutory trustee role under Title IV of ERISA.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- D.C. RPC 4.2(a) / Model Rule 4.2 (communication with represented persons)
Statutes:
- 29 U.S.C. Sections 1302, 1342 (ERISA; PBGC's role as statutory trustee)
Other opinions cited:
- D.C. Ethics Op. 258 (1995) (purposes of the no-contact rule)
See also
- DC Ethics Op. 280: Contacting Members of a Government Board
- DC Ethics Op. 287: Ex Parte Contact With Former Employees
- ABA Formal Op. 502: Pro Se Lawyer and Represented Persons
Source
- Landing page: https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/ethics-opinions-210-present/ethics-opinion-274
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1997 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.