What duties applied when a person claimed a firm represented him in a matter the firm had declined?

Short answer The committee could not decide whether an attorney-client relationship existed. If it did, withdrawal had to satisfy Rule 1.16; if it did not, the committee saw nothing more the firm could do on the stated facts.

Bar

SBAND

Issued

January 26, 1990

Source

View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1990. 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

A firm had discussed a possible malpractice claim with a person it said it would not represent in that matter, while handling other work for him. The person later asserted that the firm represented him on the malpractice claim.

The committee declined to decide whether the disputed attorney-client relationship existed. Assuming no relationship, it saw nothing more for the firm to do. Assuming one existed, it said withdrawal had to comply with Rule 1.16; compliant withdrawal would not itself create an ethical violation on the stated facts.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1990, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 the committee decide whether the firm represented the claimant?

A: No. It said it could not decide whether an attorney-client relationship had been established.

Q: What if an attorney-client relationship did exist?

A: The committee said the firm had to follow Rule 1.16 for withdrawal.

Background and rules framework

The letter applies Rule 1.16 only if an attorney-client relationship existed. The committee did not determine that disputed predicate fact.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

Rule 1.16, cited for withdrawal if an attorney-client relationship existed.

Source

Landing page: https://www.sband.org/page/ethics_opinions
Original PDF: https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000id_/https://www.sband.org/resource/resmgr/docs/for_lawyers/90-01.pdf

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 1990. 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