What could a lawyer do for a long-standing client whose ability to act in her own interest appeared impaired?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2006. Ask about yours and see what the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A lawyer had handled matters for an older client who made persistent, unsubstantiated accusations of theft, including against the lawyer. There was no active matter, but the client considered the lawyer her counsel and the lawyer expected future requests. The lawyer asked how to respond while concerned about a possible disciplinary complaint.
Under then-current Rule 1.14, the section said the lawyer should preserve a normal client-lawyer relationship as far as possible. A lawyer could take protective action, such as seeking a guardian, only on a reasonable belief that the client could not adequately act in her own interest. The lawyer could consult an appropriate diagnostician and disclose confidences as necessary for that consultation. Protective action was to be limited and preserve client autonomy; avoiding a complaint against the lawyer was not a proper ground for it.
Because no matter was active, the Rules did not require the lawyer to accept a future request. The section said withdrawal could be permitted in limited circumstances but favored continued representation when the client could not protect her interests. Disability alone was not enough to establish good cause for withdrawal.
In practice
In the lawyer's situation, no active matter meant the Rules did not require a new engagement. If the lawyer took protective action under then-current Rule 1.14(b), the section said concern about a complaint against the lawyer could not justify it and the action had to preserve the client's autonomy as far as possible.
Common questions
Q: Did the lawyer have to accept future matters from the client?
A: No. With no active representation, the section found no Rules obligation to accept a later request.
Q: Could fear of a disciplinary complaint justify protective action?
A: No. The section said protecting the lawyer from a possible complaint had no place in that decision.
Q: When could protective action be taken?
A: Only when the lawyer reasonably believed the client could not adequately act in her own interest, with action limited to preserve autonomy.
Q: Did disability alone justify withdrawal?
A: No. The section rejected disability alone as good cause, although it discussed limited circumstances where withdrawal could be permitted.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied then-current Vermont Rule 1.14(a) and (b), discussed Rule 1.16 on withdrawal, and cited ABA Formal Opinion 96-404. It distinguished proposed amendments that had not yet been adopted.
Citations and references
Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Rules 1.14(a)–(b), 1.16(a)(1), 1.16(b)(6), and 1.6.
Other opinions cited:
- ABA Formal Opinion 96-404; Vermont Opinion 2000-03.
See also
Source
- Landing page: VBA topic page
- Original PDF: Vermont Advisory Opinion 06-01
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2006. 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