Ezel / Ethics Opinions / VTBAR

May a Vermont lawyer continue representing a custody client who left the state in violation of a visitation order?

Short answer Opinion 86-05 says the lawyer may continue representation without actively assisting the client's misconduct or misrepresenting that the client remains in Vermont.
Bar
VTBAR
Issued
1986
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1986. 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 Not binding precedent.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

A custodial parent took her children out of Vermont before a custody review, interrupting the father's court-ordered supervised visitation. She had not told her lawyer or the father where she was. The lawyer asked whether she could communicate with the client and whether she had a duty to bring her back for the hearing.

The committee said the former Code did not bar continued representation simply because the client was violating the order. Former DR 7-102(A)(7) barred helping conduct known to be illegal or fraudulent, and DR 1-102(A) addressed dishonest or justice-prejudicing conduct. The lawyer could continue if she did not become an active participant or falsely say that the client remained in Vermont. The committee noted the lawyer did not know the client's location and the Code did not require her to ask for it.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1986 under Vermont's former Code of Professional Responsibility. The Vermont Supreme Court's rules history states that the Rules of Professional Conduct applied to lawyer 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 the client's violation automatically disqualify the lawyer?

A: No. The committee said the former Code had no provision prohibiting representation of a client violating a visitation order.

Q: What conduct by the lawyer would cross the line identified in the opinion?

A: The opinion barred active participation in the client's misconduct and misrepresentation that the client was still in Vermont.

Background and rules framework

The committee discussed former DR 1-102(A) on dishonest or justice-prejudicing conduct and DR 7-102(A)(7) on assisting known illegal or fraudulent conduct. It said the inquiry did not present a confidentiality-disclosure issue because the lawyer did not know the client's whereabouts.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Vermont Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102(A) and DR 7-102(A)(7)

See also

No sibling opinions yet indexed.

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1986. 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