Ezel / Ethics Opinions / SBAND

What should a lawyer do when a client rejects a settlement offer and the lawyer doubts the client’s ability to decide?

Short answer The committee presumed client competence and said a reasonable client request must be honored. If counsel believed the client could not make the decision, it identified seeking a guardian, conservator, or other legal protection as an option.
Bar
SBAND
Issued
June 2, 1988
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1988. Ask about yours and see what the current North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.

How much weight this carries: Under North Dakota Rule for Lawyer Discipline 1.2(B), a lawyer who acts in good faith and in reasonable reliance on a written opinion of the association's ethics committee is not subject to sanction for the conduct the opinion addresses. Source.
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 lawyer described a personal-injury client who rejected a settlement offer and refused to authorize an expert assessment of competence. A relative alleged that the client could not decide about the offer. The committee said it could not tell whether rejection of the offer was outside the normal lawyer-client relationship.

The committee said there was a strong presumption of competence and a reasonable client request had to be honored. It identified three paths on the stated facts: proceed as the client wished, withdraw from representation, or seek legal protection. If counsel believed the client incompetent, the committee said to seek a guardian, conservator, or approval of a single transaction.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1988, before North Dakota's 2006 revisions to its Rules of Professional Conduct. The later North Dakota Opinion 06-05 states: “On August 1, 2006, material changes to N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.10(a) will take effect.” 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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.

Common questions

Q: Did rejecting the offer establish incompetence?

A: No. The committee could not tell whether the rejection was outside a normal lawyer-client relationship and stated a strong presumption of competence.

Q: What if the lawyer believed the client could not decide?

A: The committee said counsel should seek an appropriate legal representative or other legal protection for the client.

Background and rules framework

The letter quoted Rule 1.14 on maintaining a normal lawyer-client relationship, as far as reasonably possible, when decision-making ability is impaired. It also quoted the rule commentary on seeking a legal representative and consulting a diagnostician.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Rule 1.14, governing representation when client decision-making ability is impaired.

Source

Original opinion text

Full opinion text unavailable from the official source; see the linked source above for the complete text.

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1988. Ezel checks the current North Dakota 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