WISBAR 1996

What must a lawyer do when a client cannot be located and the lawyer has lost all contact?

Short answer: The opinion concluded that because the duties of communication, consultation, and following a client's instructions depend on knowing the client's whereabouts, a lawyer who has lost contact must make reasonable inquiry and effort to find the client. If those efforts fail, the lawyer may have no alternative but to seek to withdraw under SCR 20:1.16, taking reasonably practicable steps to protect the client's interests, which in many cases may include filing suit to preserve the statute of limitations.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1996. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 1996
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
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 Not binding precedent.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

Opinion E-96-2 answered a firm representing a personal-injury plaintiff it could no longer contact, having pursued numerous leads without success. The committee explained that the duties of communication and consultation and the duty to follow a client's instructions all depend on knowing the client's whereabouts and how to reach the client (citing SCR 20:1.2(a) and 20:1.4 and Olfe v. Gordon, on the lawyer's general duty to follow a client's specific instructions).

Agreeing with ABA Informal Opinion 1467 (1981), the committee concluded that a lawyer should make "reasonable inquiry and effort" to learn a missing client's whereabouts, with what is reasonable varying by circumstance. If efforts to contact the client are unsuccessful, the lawyer may have no alternative but to seek to withdraw under SCR 20:1.16, taking steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect the client's interests. Whether the lawyer must file a lawsuit on the client's behalf, and thereby satisfy the statute of limitations, also depends on the circumstances; in many situations involving a client whose whereabouts are unknown, the committee observed that filing may be the most cautious course.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996, before Wisconsin's July 1, 2007 adoption of the revised Rules of Professional Conduct (the state's Ethics 2000 update). 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 mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: What is the first step when a lawyer cannot reach a client?

A: Reasonable inquiry and effort to find them. The committee, following ABA Informal Op. 1467, concluded that a lawyer should make reasonable inquiry and effort to learn the client's whereabouts, with the required effort depending on the circumstances.

Q: What if the lawyer still cannot locate the client?

A: The lawyer may have to withdraw. The committee concluded that if efforts fail, the lawyer may have no alternative but to seek to withdraw under SCR 20:1.16, taking reasonably practicable steps to protect the client's interests.

Q: Does the lawyer have to file suit to preserve a deadline?

A: It depends. The committee concluded that whether the lawyer must file a lawsuit to satisfy the statute of limitations depends on the circumstances, and that in many cases involving a missing client, filing may be the most cautious course.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted SCR 20:1.2(a) / Model Rule 1.2 (scope of representation and the client's objectives) and SCR 20:1.4 / Model Rule 1.4 (communication), explaining that both depend on the ability to reach the client, and SCR 20:1.16 / Model Rule 1.16 (declining or terminating representation, including steps to protect a client on withdrawal). It relied on Olfe v. Gordon and ABA Informal Op. 1467.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Wis. SCR 20:1.2(a) / Model Rule 1.2 (objectives of representation)
  • Wis. SCR 20:1.4 / Model Rule 1.4 (communication)
  • Wis. SCR 20:1.16 / Model Rule 1.16 (withdrawal; protecting the client)

Cases:

  • Olfe v. Gordon, 93 Wis. 2d 173, 286 N.W.2d 573 (1980), lawyer's general duty to follow a client's specific instructions
  • Sherman v. Heisler, 85 Wis. 2d 246, 270 N.W.2d 397 (1980)

Other opinions cited:

  • ABA Informal Op. 1467 (Aug. 10, 1981): reasonable inquiry and effort to locate a client

See also

Source

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 1996 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.