What did the opinion require when a lawyer could reach only one of three plaintiffs before trial?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer could reach one of three plaintiffs but not the other two before trial; the judge had resisted further continuances.

The opinion called for messages about the trial date wherever the missing clients might reasonably receive them, plus periodic contact attempts. It required discussion with the reachable plaintiff about that client's representation. Depending on instructions and procedural options, the lawyer could seek another continuance or dismissal without prejudice, or withdraw as to the missing clients while telling the judge they likely had no notice.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2001, 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: What notice should be attempted?

A: Messages about the trial date at every location where the missing clients might reasonably receive them.

Q: Did the opinion permit withdrawal from all clients automatically?

A: No. It discussed the reachable plaintiff's instructions and possible withdrawal only from the missing plaintiffs.

Background and rules framework

The published answer addressed communication and withdrawal on the stated three-client facts without citing a numbered rule.

See also

• Missouri Informal Op. 20030030: Unreachable Client

Source

• Landing page: https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/20010038/

• 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 represents three plaintiffs, X, Y, and Z, in a lawsuit. Attorney has been able to speak with X regarding the trial setting, but Attorney has been unable to locate or speak with Y and Z. Attorney hired a private investigator who found out that Y is on vacation and Z travels extensively for work. The families of Y and Z are not able to help Attorney. In the past, the Judge advised Attorney that he will not continue the matter any more. However, since Attorney can only locate X, it seems unfair to proceed. Attorney may file a motion to withdraw, but feels that would be unfair to X. What should Attorney do in this situation?

ANSWER: Attorney should leave a message for Y and Z at every location where it is reasonably possible that they would receive it, notifying them of the trial date. Attorney should continue to make periodic efforts to contact them. Attorney should also discuss this situation with X and determine what X’s instructions are regarding Attorney’s representation of X. If X is willing to seek another continuance or to dismiss without prejudice, if that is possible, Attorney may proceed on that basis, if Attorney is unable to locate the other clients prior to trial. If X is unwilling to seek another continuance or dismiss without prejudice, Attorney will need to seek to withdraw from representation of Y and Z, but make it clear to the judge that Attorney does not believe they have received notice. If possible, Attorney may need to dismiss without prejudice as to the two “missing” plaintiffs and proceed with representation of X.