Does the no-contact rule barring communication with a represented party apply to a county attorney trying to get a represented defendant to plead guilty?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry quoted Rule 11, which provided that "a lawyer should not in any manner communicate upon the subject of controversy with a party represented by counsel," and asked whether the rule applied to county attorneys and whether a county attorney should undertake to persuade a defendant to plead guilty knowing the defendant was represented by counsel.

The Board concluded that Rule 11 applied to all members of the State Bar, including county attorneys. A county attorney violated its provisions when he communicated with a defendant, in the absence of the defendant's counsel or without counsel's express consent, as to any matters involved in the charges against the defendant. The Board cited its Advisory Opinion No. 9, where Rule 21 had been held applicable to county attorneys.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1934, decades before Oklahoma replaced its original Rules of Professional Conduct (patterned on the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics) with the Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct (adopted 1988) and the later Ethics 2000 revisions. The rule cited here, Rule 11, belongs to that superseded canon-era code, though its no-contact principle persists in the modern rule on communication with represented persons. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Did the no-contact rule bind prosecutors in 1934?

A: Yes. The opinion held that Rule 11 applied to all members of the bar including county attorneys.

Q: Could a county attorney try to get a represented defendant to plead guilty?

A: Not by direct communication. The opinion held a county attorney violated Rule 11 by communicating with a represented defendant about matters involved in the charges without counsel's express consent.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Rule 11 of the canon-era Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct, barring communication with a party represented by counsel about the subject of the controversy, drawn from the ABA Canons of Professional Ethics. The opinion predates the Model Rules and made no Model Rule citation.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Rule 11 (1929 Oklahoma Rules of Professional Conduct): a lawyer should not communicate upon the subject of controversy with a party represented by counsel.

Other opinions cited:

• Oklahoma Advisory Opinion No. 9: Rule 21 held applicable to county attorneys.

See also

• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 78: Law partner serving as Conciliation Commissioner
• Okla. Bar Ethics Op. 13: County attorney accepting compensation connected to a prosecution

Source

• Landing page: https://www.okbar.org/ethics/ethics-opinion-no-80/

Original opinion text

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

Adopted October 26, 1934

The Board is in receipt of the following inquiry:

"In Rule 11 of the rules of professional conduct it is provided that 'a lawyer should not in any manner communicate upon the subject of controversy with a party represented by counsel.'

Does this rule apply to county attorneys? Should a county attorney undertake to persuade a defendant to plead guilty, when he knows that this defendant is represented by counsel?"

In response:

Rule eleven applies to all members of The State Bar including county attorneys. A county attorney violates its provisions when he communicates with a defendant, in the absence of the defendant's counsel or without counsel's express consent, as to any matters involved in the charges against the defendant.

See Advisory Opinion Number Nine where Rule 21 was held applicable to county attorneys.