Could counsel remain in a traffic case after a client had a friend contact the judge about it?

Plain-English summary

A traffic-case client asked a friend who knew the judge to contact the judge about the violation. The judge declined to discuss the case.

The opinion said the lawyer should advise the client to stop this activity. If the client was willing, the lawyer could remain; if not, the lawyer had to withdraw.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2000, before Missouri’s 2007 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Later amendments or opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context and verify current rules before relying on it. The official Rule 4-1.9 and 4-1.10 reference notes identify July 1, 2007 amendments.

Common questions

Q: Could counsel continue if the client stopped?

A: Yes. The opinion permitted that if the client agreed to cease the contact.

Q: What if the client would not stop?

A: The opinion said counsel must withdraw.

Background and rules framework

The answer addressed continued representation after the client’s attempted contact without citing a numbered rule.

See also

• Missouri Informal Op. 20000102: Client Death Disclosure

Source

• Landing page: https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/20000185/

• Rule revision reference: Missouri Informal Opinion 20030007

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

QUESTION: Attorney is representing Client in a traffic matter. Client has a friend who is a friend of the Judge. Client had her friend contact the Judge regarding the traffic violation. The Judge responded that he could not speak about the case. What are Attorney´s ethical violations concerning either mandatory or discretionary withdrawal?

ANSWER: Attorney should advise Client to cease this type of activity and contact. If Client is willing to do so, Attorney may remain in the case. If Client is not willing to do so, Attorney must withdraw.