Can a plaintiff's lawyer agree, as a condition of settling a case, not to take or bring similar claims against the same defendant in the future?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1985. Ask about yours and see what the current Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The committee addressed a settlement agreement that included, as a condition of settlement, a promise by the plaintiff's attorney not to accept cases or prosecute similar claims against the same defendant afterward. The committee concluded that it is improper for the plaintiff's attorney to enter such an agreement.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1985, under Virginia's former Code of Professional Responsibility, before the Virginia State Bar's adoption of the Rules of Professional Conduct effective January 1, 2000. The committee note records that this opinion is overruled by Rule 5.6(b), which would permit such an agreement if approved by the court or a government agency. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Could a lawyer agree in a settlement not to sue the same defendant again?
A: Under this 1985 opinion, no; the committee found it improper for the plaintiff's attorney to make a promise not to take or prosecute similar claims against the same defendant a condition of settlement.
Q: Has this opinion's conclusion held up?
A: No. The committee note states that the opinion is overruled by Rule 5.6(b), which would permit such an agreement if it is approved by the court or a government agency.
Background and rules framework
The opinion addressed a settlement term that would restrict the plaintiff's attorney's future practice against a particular defendant. The committee resolved it under the former Code, and the committee note maps the question onto current Virginia Rule 5.6(b), corresponding to ABA Model Rule 5.6, which bars practice-restricting settlement terms except where a court or government agency approves the agreement.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- DR 2-106(B) (former Code; cited in the opinion)
- Virginia Rule 5.6(b) / ABA Model Rule 5.6 (restrictions on a lawyer's right to practice in a settlement)
See also
- VA LEO 1788: A Settlement Barring a Lawyer From Suing a Company
- VA LEO 1715: Hiring Plaintiff's Lawyers as a Settlement Term
- TX Ethics Op. 505: Settlement Restricting Future Solicitation
Source
- Landing page: https://vsb.org/Site/about/rules-regulations/leo-opinions.aspx
- Original PDF: https://www.vsb.org/common/Uploaded%20files/LEOs/0649.pdf
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
LEGAL ETHICS OPINION 649
RESTRICTIONS ON PRACTICE – SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BY ATTORNEY.
It is improper for a plaintiff's attorney to enter into a settlement agreement which includes, as a condition of settlement, that the plaintiff's attorney will not thereafter accept cases or prosecute similar claims against the same defendant. [DR:2-106(B)]
Committee Opinion
January 7, 1985
Legal Ethics Committee Notes. – This opinion is overruled by Rule 5.6(b) which would permit such an agreement if approved by the court or a government agency.
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1985. Ezel checks the current Virginia 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