Could a lawyer rely on the client to report another lawyer's conduct, and did the lawyer need to investigate further?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1992. Ask about yours and see what the current North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A lawyer asked whether a client's account of another attorney's handling of fees and a bankruptcy matter required a report to the State Bar. The committee answered that, on the information in the request, the lawyer had an obligation to report that attorney's conduct. It suggested obtaining a statement or affidavit from the client to support the complaint.
The committee qualified the reporting answer under Rule 1.6: the duty did not require disclosure of information protected by that rule, and disclosure could be permitted with the client's consent after consultation. It also said having the client report the conduct did not fulfill the lawyer's own reporting obligation. It cited Formal Ethics Opinion No. 42 on that point.
Finally, the committee said the lawyer had no duty to investigate further before reporting, while again suggesting a signed client statement or affidavit to support the factual basis alleged.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1992, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 find a reporting duty on the supplied facts?
A: Yes. It said the requesting lawyer had an obligation to report the other attorney's conduct, subject to Rule 1.6's protection of confidential information.
Q: Would asking the client to report satisfy the lawyer's own obligation?
A: No. The committee said a client report would not fulfill the obligation of the lawyer aware of the conduct.
Q: Did the lawyer need to investigate the allegation further first?
A: No. The committee said there was no duty of further investigation, though it suggested getting a signed client statement or affidavit.
Background and rules framework
The letter discusses North Dakota Rule 1.6's confidentiality limit and cites Formal Ethics Opinion No. 42 when distinguishing a client's report from the lawyer's duty.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- North Dakota Rule 1.6, protected information and consent after consultation.
Other opinions cited:
- Formal Ethics Opinion No. 42, cited on the lawyer's own reporting obligation.
See also
- ND Ethics Op. 1990-03: reporting timing
- ND Ethics Op. 1990-05: report despite another lawyer's report
- ND Ethics Op. 1991-04: confidentiality and reporting
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/92-06.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 1992. 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