May a Missouri divorce lawyer condition a civil settlement on the spouse seeking dismissal of or refusing to cooperate with a domestic-assault prosecution?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2025. Ask about yours and see what the current Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The lawyer represented a client in a dissolution action. The client had also been charged with domestic assault concerning the spouse, and the lawyer proposed making settlement of the divorce conditional on the spouse asking that the charge be dismissed or declining to cooperate with the criminal prosecution.
The opinion rejects both proposed conditions under Rule 4-8.4(d). It characterizes a civil settlement tied to dismissal of criminal charges as prejudicial to the administration of justice because it conflicts with public-policy concerns about holding criminal perpetrators accountable and deterring repeated offenses.
In practice
Under this opinion, neither a request for dismissal nor a request that the spouse withhold cooperation could be made a condition of resolving the dissolution action. The committee treated the link between the civil settlement and criminal case as the Rule 4-8.4(d) violation.
Common questions
Q: May the divorce settlement require the spouse to seek dismissal of the assault charge?
A: No. The opinion concludes that the condition would violate Rule 4-8.4(d).
Q: May settlement instead require the spouse not to cooperate with prosecutors?
A: No. The opinion treats that alternative as part of the same impermissible proposal.
Q: Why is the condition prejudicial to the administration of justice?
A: The opinion says a civil settlement requiring dismissal of criminal charges conflicts with public-policy concerns in accountability and deterrence of repeated criminal offenses.
Background and rules framework
Missouri Rule 4-8.4(d) defines conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice as professional misconduct. The opinion applies that provision to proposed terms connecting resolution of a dissolution case with dismissal of, or noncooperation in, a domestic-assault prosecution.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Missouri Rule 4-8.4(d) (conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice)
Other opinions cited:
- Missouri Formal Opinion 122
- Missouri Informal Opinion 2019-02
See also
- Colorado Ethics Op. 62: Prosecutor Release-Dismissal Agreements
- North Carolina 2008 Formal Ethics Op. 15: Settlement and Law-Enforcement Reports
- West Virginia Ethics Op. 88-03: Settlement and Ethics-Complaint Withdrawal
Source
- Landing page: Missouri Informal Opinion 2025-06
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
Question: Lawyer represents a client in a dissolution action. Client has been charged with domestic assault concerning his spouse. Lawyer would like to condition dissolution settlement upon the client’s spouse requesting the dismissal of the domestic abuse charge and/or declining to cooperate in the criminal prosecution. Lawyer asks if it is permissible to request such conditions?
Answer: Lawyer’s proposal would violate Rule 4–8.4(d) as conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. See also Missouri Formal Opinion 122 and Informal Opinion 2019–02. This is because a civil settlement that requires the dismissal of criminal charges is contrary to public policy concerns of holding criminal perpetrators accountable and deterring repeated criminal offenses.
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2025. Ezel checks the current Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace