May a lawyer continue representing an employer after an adverse caller sought representation?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2000. Ask about yours and see what the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A caller sought counsel about a possible dispute with an employer already represented by the lawyer. The lawyer identified the conflict, gave no legal assistance, and told the caller to find other counsel. The caller had disclosed the employer’s name and the general nature of the dispute in response to the lawyer’s questions.
The committee concluded that the call had not created a lawyer-client relationship and had not supplied information critical to the employer representation. It therefore did not disqualify the lawyer from continuing to represent the employer in the potential dispute. The opinion distinguished its earlier Opinion 92-13, where the caller had disclosed confidential information directly bearing on a claim.
Even without a lawyer-client relationship, the lawyer could not tell the employer the caller’s identity or the call’s contents. The opinion relied on ABA Formal Opinion 90-358’s treatment of information from would-be clients.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 2000, before the Vermont Supreme Court's 2009 amendments to the Rules of Professional Conduct. The court's rules history says those amendments incorporated changes to the ABA Model Rules adopted in 2001-2003. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 caller’s contact automatically disqualify the employer’s lawyer?
A: No. On the stated facts, the lawyer provided no advice and received no information critical to the employer’s representation.
Q: Could the lawyer tell the employer about the call?
A: No. The committee prohibited disclosure of the caller’s identity and the subject of the call.
Q: What if the caller had disclosed critical confidential information?
A: The opinion distinguished its earlier Opinion 92-13, which required declining the existing client’s representation in the matter discussed with the caller.
Background and rules framework
The opinion considered Vermont Rules 1.7 and 1.9, and quoted ABA Formal Opinion 90-358 on protecting would-be client information under Model Rule 1.6. It also cited Richardson v. Griffiths and Bresette v. Knapp on formation of lawyer-client relationships.
Citations and references
Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Rules 1.7, 1.9, 1.6
Cases:
- Richardson v. Griffiths, 560 N.W. 2d 430 (N.E.B. 1997), lawyer-client relationship
- Bresette v. Knapp, 121 VT 376 (1960), implied lawyer employment
Other opinions cited:
- ABA Formal Opinion 90-358; Vermont Opinion 92-13
See also
Source
- Landing page: VBA conflict of interest opinions
- Original PDF: Vermont Advisory Opinion 00-10
- Rules history: Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct, “The Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct are amended to incorporate comprehensive and significant changes to the American Bar Association's Model Rules of Professional Conduct.”
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2000. Ezel checks the current Vermont 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