NYC-BAR 2007

Can a lawyer contact the in-house counsel of a represented organization directly, without going through its outside counsel?

Short answer: Yes, generally. The no-contact rule does not bar contacting an organization's in-house counsel, even when outside counsel is retained, so long as the contacting lawyer has a reasonable, good-faith belief based on objective indicia that the in-house lawyer is acting as a lawyer for the organization rather than as a represented party.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2007. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current New York Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.

Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.

About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

The opinion addresses whether DR 7-104(A)(1), the no-contact rule, bars a lawyer from communicating directly with the in-house counsel of an organization that the lawyer knows is represented by outside counsel in the matter. The committee, applying the former New York Code, concludes that such contact is generally permitted.

The rule distinguishes two mutually exclusive categories: lawyers representing a client, and parties represented by a lawyer. An in-house counsel who represents the organization falls in the first category, like co-counsel, so contacting that lawyer is not barred even though outside counsel is also retained. Neither the rule's text nor the related Ethical Consideration distinguishes inside from outside counsel, and the Code treats an in-house legal department like a law firm. The committee aligns with the majority view (ABA Formal Op. 06-443; D.C. Op. 331; In re Grievance Proceeding), reasoning that the rule's core purpose, protecting a lay party from a lawyer's superior legal knowledge, is at best attenuated when the recipient is a lawyer acting as such.

The committee declines to make the rule turn on the contacting lawyer's subjective motive, because motives are hard to assess after the fact and a subjective test would chill prudent lawyers from making permissible contacts. Instead, the touchstone is whether the in-house lawyer is in fact acting as a lawyer for the entity (though not necessarily on the matter at issue). Because in-house counsel often play mixed business and legal roles, the contacting lawyer must have a good-faith belief, based on objective evidence, that the in-house lawyer is serving as a lawyer.

The opinion lists objective indicia: job title (for example, "General Counsel" presumptively signals a lawyer role, while "Director of Compliance" does not), being listed "Of Counsel" on court papers, the course of conduct including prior related proceedings, membership in an in-house legal department, and simply asking the in-house lawyer to clarify the role. Conversely, indicia can show the in-house lawyer is merely an employee-party, for example where the lawyer was a participant in the underlying events (such as drafting the disputed contract), raising lawyer-as-witness concerns under DR 5-102.

In practice

The opinion was issued in 2007 under the former New York Code, which the New York Rules of Professional Conduct replaced effective April 1, 2009; DR 7-104(A)(1) corresponds to current Rule 4.2. Under the framework as it stood at the time, the opinion holds that a lawyer may contact a represented organization's in-house counsel directly when the lawyer reasonably and in good faith believes, based on objective indicia like title, court filings, course of conduct, department membership, or a direct inquiry, that the in-house lawyer is acting as a lawyer for the entity. It treats contact as outside that allowance where objective signs show the in-house lawyer is merely a represented employee-party, such as a participant in the events giving rise to the dispute.

Common questions

Q: Does the no-contact rule stop a lawyer from calling opposing in-house counsel directly?

A: Generally no. The opinion treats in-house counsel who represents the organization as a "lawyer," like co-counsel, so contact is not barred even though outside counsel is retained.

Q: What must the contacting lawyer believe before reaching out?

A: That the in-house lawyer is acting as a lawyer for the organization, a belief that must be reasonable and in good faith and grounded in objective indicia.

Q: What counts as objective evidence the in-house lawyer is acting as counsel?

A: The opinion lists job title (a "General Counsel" title presumptively qualifies), an "Of Counsel" listing on court papers, the course of conduct, membership in the legal department, and a direct question to the in-house lawyer about the role.

Q: When is contacting in-house counsel not permitted?

A: When objective indicia show the in-house lawyer is a represented party rather than acting as counsel, for example where the lawyer was a participant in the underlying events, implicating lawyer-as-witness limits under DR 5-102.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets the former New York Code's no-contact rule, DR 7-104(A)(1) (no communication with a party known to be represented by another lawyer), which corresponds to Model Rule 4.2. It also references DR 5-102 (lawyer as witness), which corresponds to Model Rule 3.7, and DR 1-102(A)(4) (misrepresentation), corresponding to Model Rule 8.4(c), regarding in-house counsel's candor about their role. The committee anchors the "core group" boundaries of the rule for organizations to Niesig v. Team I.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

MR 4.2 / NY DR 7-104(A)(1) (communication with a represented party)
MR 3.7 / NY DR 5-102 (lawyer as witness)
MR 8.4(c) / NY DR 1-102(A)(4) (misrepresentation)

Cases:

Niesig v. Team I, 76 N.Y.2d 363 (1990), which organizational employees the no-contact rule covers
In re Grievance Proceeding, 2002 WL 31106389 (D. Conn. 2002), contact with general counsel generally permitted
U.S. Postal Serv. v. Phelps Dodge Ref. Corp., 852 F. Supp. 156 (E.D.N.Y. 1994), in-house counsel's mixed business and legal roles

Other opinions cited:

ABA Formal Op. 06-443 (2006); D.C. Bar Op. 331 (2005)
Philadelphia Bar Op. 2000-11 (more restrictive view); N.C. State Bar Op. RPC-128 (1993)

Source

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 2007 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current New York Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.