Ezel / Ethics Opinions / NYSBA
NYSBA 2018-01-29

Can a lawyer limit how and when a difficult client communicates, and when may the lawyer withdraw?

Short answer: Yes. A lawyer may set reasonable time-and-manner limits on client communications, such as scheduled appointments or writing, as long as the substantive duties of Rule 1.4 are met. If communication breaks down so representation cannot proceed effectively, the lawyer may seek to withdraw under Rule 1.16, subject to court permission.
Currency note: this opinion is from 2018
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
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 Not binding precedent.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 at the bottom of this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

NY State Bar Ethics Opinion 1144: Limiting communications and withdrawing from a difficult client

Short answer: A lawyer may place reasonable limits on the time and manner of communications with a difficult client, so long as the lawyer still meets the substantive communication duties of Rule 1.4, and where communication breaks down so that the representation cannot be carried out effectively, the lawyer may seek to withdraw under Rule 1.16, subject to any required court permission.

Disclaimer: This is an advisory ethics opinion. Advisory opinions are not binding; they interpret the New York Rules of Professional Conduct and are persuasive authority. This summary is for research purposes only and is not legal advice. Verify current rules before acting on any specific guidance.

About this page: The plain-English summary and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official opinion. We do not reproduce the opinion text on this page; follow the linked source for the official text, which controls.

View original opinion

Plain-English summary

A court assigned the inquirer to defend a client charged with several crimes. The client, who has ongoing mental-health issues, is described as physically intimidating, verbally abusive, and often non-responsive, and has unsuccessfully moved to relieve the inquirer. The inquirer wants to limit the time and manner of communications (for example, to scheduled appointments and writing) and, if the client will not abide by the limits, to consider withdrawing.

The committee reads Rule 1.4 to require keeping the client reasonably informed of material developments, complying with the client's reasonable requests for information, and reasonably consulting about the means of the representation, with prompt communication on developments and reasonable requests. But Rule 1.4 does not prescribe a manner of communication. Rule 1.4(a)(4) requires compliance only with reasonable requests, letting a lawyer curtail conversations that stray from the representation, and nothing in the Rule bars a lawyer from controlling the timing of communications beyond the duty to act "promptly" (Comment [4] supports scheduling, suggesting acknowledging a request and advising when a response can be expected). So a lawyer may limit communications to scheduled appointments or accessible written form as long as the substantive Rule 1.4 duties are met (citing N.Y. State 1124).

On withdrawal, Rule 1.16(c) lists disjunctive grounds, including that the client renders the representation unreasonably difficult to carry out effectively (1.16(c)(7)). Because the inquirer has already appeared, withdrawal requires the tribunal's permission under Rule 1.16(d). In a criminal defense, effective representation requires meaningful communication; if the client's abuse and non-responsiveness cause an irreparable breakdown, the inquirer may ask the court for leave to withdraw. The committee also flags Rule 1.14: because the client has mental-health issues, the lawyer must maintain a normal lawyer-client relationship as far as reasonably possible, treat the client attentively and with respect, and may take limited protective action, with guardianship a last resort (citing N.Y. State 986, 949). If the lawyer stays on, protective measures may help facilitate communication and effective representation.

In practice

Under this opinion, a lawyer may impose reasonable time-and-manner limits on a difficult client's communications, such as requiring scheduled appointments or written communications, provided the lawyer continues to meet Rule 1.4's substantive duties to keep the client informed and respond promptly to reasonable requests. If the relationship deteriorates to an irreparable breakdown in communication that prevents effective representation, the lawyer may move to withdraw under Rule 1.16(c)(7), but because the lawyer has already appeared, withdrawal requires the court's permission under Rule 1.16(d). Where the client has diminished capacity, Rule 1.14 requires maintaining a normal relationship as far as reasonably possible and may permit limited protective action.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer restrict a client to scheduled appointments or written communication?

A: Yes. Rule 1.4 does not prescribe a manner of communication, so a lawyer may set reasonable time-and-manner limits as long as the substantive duties to inform and respond are met (Opinion 1144 ¶¶ 6-8).

Q: When may the lawyer withdraw from a difficult client?

A: When the client renders the representation unreasonably difficult to carry out effectively under Rule 1.16(c)(7), among other grounds. If the lawyer has appeared, withdrawal requires the court's permission under Rule 1.16(d) (¶¶ 9-10).

Q: Does the client's mental illness change the lawyer's duties?

A: Yes. Rule 1.14 requires maintaining a normal relationship as far as reasonably possible and treating the client with respect, and permits limited protective action, with guardianship a last resort (¶ 11).

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rule 1.4 (Model Rule 1.4) on communication, Rule 1.16(c), (d) (Model Rule 1.16) on permissive withdrawal and court permission, and Rule 1.14 (Model Rule 1.14) on clients with diminished capacity, with Rule 1.2(a) (Model Rule 1.2) on allocating authority between lawyer and client.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • New York Rule 1.4 (Model Rule 1.4): communication; reasonable requests; manner and timing
  • New York Rule 1.16(c), (d) (Model Rule 1.16): permissive withdrawal; court permission
  • New York Rule 1.14 (Model Rule 1.14): client with diminished capacity; protective action
  • New York Rule 1.2(a) (Model Rule 1.2): allocation of decision-making authority

Other opinions cited:

  • N.Y. State 1124 (2017): the Rules do not mandate a manner of communication
  • N.Y. State 986 (2013); N.Y. State 949 (2012): protective action under Rule 1.14; guardianship as last resort

See also

Source