Ezel / Ethics Opinions / VTBAR

Could a Vermont settlement bar plaintiff's counsel from representing future claimants against the defendant?

Short answer Opinion 95-11 said the proposed restriction on future representation violated former DR 2-108(B). The committee applied the prohibition to both accepting and demanding such a settlement condition.
Bar
VTBAR
Issued
1995
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1995. 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 Not binding precedent.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 defendant's lawyer proposed that settlement of an existing claim require the plaintiff's lawyer to refuse later representation of similarly situated claimants against that defendant. The committee treated the condition as a restriction on the lawyer's right to practice and as affecting future clients' access to the lawyer.

Former DR 2-108(B) barred a lawyer from entering a settlement agreement restricting the lawyer's practice. Relying also on ABA Formal Opinion 93-371 and the Code's prohibition on circumventing rules through another person, the committee said the restriction could neither be accepted by plaintiff's counsel nor demanded by defense counsel.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995, before Vermont's 1999 adoption of the Rules of Professional Conduct. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Could plaintiff's lawyer accept the proposed term for the current client's settlement?

A: No. The committee found it barred future representation and violated former DR 2-108(B).

Q: Could defense counsel demand that term?

A: No. The opinion extended the prohibition to the lawyer offering or requiring the practice restriction.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied former DR 2-108(B) and DR 1-102(A)(2), and cited Model Rules 5.6(b) and 8.4(a) through ABA Formal Opinion 93-371.

Citations and references

Former Vermont disciplinary rules:

  • DR 2-108(B) and DR 1-102(A)(2).

Model Rules cited:

  • Model Rules 5.6(b) and 8.4(a).

Other opinions cited:

  • ABA Formal Opinion 93-371.

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 1995. 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