Ezel / Ethics Opinions / VTBAR

May a Vermont lawyer arbitrate a case involving a current client represented by the lawyer in other matters?

Short answer Opinion 01-06 barred the lawyer from serving as a party-appointed arbiter when the insurer in the arbitration was an ongoing client, even though the lawyer did not represent it in that particular dispute.
Bar
VTBAR
Issued
2001
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2001. Ask about yours and see what the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.

Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
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

An insurer asked a lawyer it retained in other matters to serve as its party-appointed arbiter in an uninsured or underinsured motorist dispute. The lawyer would not represent the insurer in the arbitration. The committee nevertheless found that the ongoing client relationship created a duty of loyalty and a financial interest in maintaining that relationship.

The opinion acknowledged that party-appointed arbiters may have general philosophical leanings, but said they still must decide fairly on the evidence and without a personal stake. It concluded that this lawyer could not serve, applying Rule 8.4(d)'s ban on conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. The committee mentioned possible rare cases involving a more tenuous connection and disclosure to the adverse party; it did not apply that possibility to these facts.

Currency note

This opinion applied Vermont's Rules of Professional Conduct in 2001, after they replaced the former Code for conduct after September 1, 1999. Later amendments or opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this opinion as historical context and verify current rules before relying on it.

Common questions

Q: Did it matter that the lawyer represented the insurer in other matters only?

A: No. The committee disqualified the lawyer because the insurer was an ongoing client, despite the separate subject matter.

Q: Did party appointment remove the arbiter's duty to decide fairly?

A: No. The opinion said a party-appointed arbiter could have a general predisposition but still had to reach a fair result on the evidence without a private stake.

Background and rules framework

The committee relied on Vermont Rule 8.4(d) and focused on the lawyer's current relationship with a party to the arbitration. It distinguished ordinary philosophical predisposition from loyalty and financial interests tied to an existing client.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Vermont Rule of Professional Conduct 8.4(d)

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 2001. 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