道德意见340
与政府官员就诉讼事宜进行接触
在维.C. 规则4.2(d), 在对政府机构提起诉讼的纠纷中，代表客户的靠谱的滚球平台可以在未经政府靠谱的滚球平台事先同意的情况下，与该机构内的政府官员联系，讨论实质性的法律问题, so long as the lawyer identifies himself 和 indicates that he is representing a party adverse to the government. 除了, the lawyer may also contact officials at other government agencies who have the authority to affect the government’s position in the litigation concerning matters, 前提是靠谱的滚球平台要做上述相同的披露. 靠谱的滚球平台不能, 然而, contact government officials either within the agency involved in the litigation or elsewhere concerning routine discovery matters, scheduling issues or the like, absent the consent of government counsel.
适用的规则
- 规则4.2(d) (Communicating with Government Officials)
调查
We have received an inquiry from an attorney representing an agency of the United States Government concerning the interpretation of D.C. 规则4.2 governing contacts with represented persons. 的 attorney is employed by a government agency that frequently finds itself in contract disputes with private entities that provide services to the agency. 在这些争论中, according to the inquirer, the government contracting officer has the authority to resolve or settle the dispute on behalf of the government. 询问者要求提供指导，说明在什么时候以及在什么情况下，对方的靠谱的滚球平台可以就争议与政府合同官员联系, 以及他们是否可以在未经代表政府机构的靠谱的滚球平台同意的情况下这样做. 具体地说, 询问者询问，在未经政府靠谱的滚球平台同意的情况下，代表该机构对手的私人靠谱的滚球平台是否可以就政府法庭文件中包含的法律论据与政府合同官员联系.
的 inquirer also asks whether contacts, again without the consent of the government attorney, 在与政府发生纠纷的私人实体的靠谱的滚球平台和不受雇于相关机构但可以这样做的政府官员之间可以发生什么, by virtue of their positions, affect the government’s position in the dispute.
Background
D.C. 规则4.第2条一般禁止靠谱的滚球平台与由靠谱的滚球平台代理的人在未经代理人的靠谱的滚球平台同意的情况下就代理的主题进行通信. 就本规则而言，“人”包括组织，并特别涵盖组织内就特定争议事项“有权约束[该]组织”的个人. D.C. 规则4.2(c). As we explained in Opinion 80, the government officials “who are deemed to be government ‘parties’ with whom communications under the rule are restricted are quite limited, including only those persons who have the power to commit or bind the government with respect to the matter in question.” D.C. 道德Op. 80 (1979) (interpreting DR-7-104(A)(1)).
的 purpose of 规则4.第2条，因为它涉及到被代理的个人和组织，是“保护[]未受过法律教育的被代理的人不受对方靠谱的滚球平台的直接联系。.” D.C. 规则4.2、点评[5]; 另请参阅 D.C. 道德Op. 331 (2005) (recognizing the “basic purpose” of 规则4.2 “is to prevent a client, who on the one h和 is presumed to be relatively unsophisticated legally but who 另一方面 has ultimate substantive control over the matter, 由于对方靠谱的滚球平台的不当压力而作出不知情或不合理的决定”)(内部引语省略)规则4所体现的概念.第2条并不是一个新规定，在《靠谱的足球滚球平台》中也有体现. 看到 DR 7-104 (prohibiting communication by a lawyer with “a party he knows to be represented by a lawyer in [the] matter”). 在本管辖权范围内，规则4规定的一般禁止.2 is subject to a number of exceptions. 例如, Comment [5] allows a lawyer to contact in-house counsel of an organization without the consent of outside counsel representing the organization. 另请参阅 D.C. 道德Op. 331.
This inquiry involves the exception contained in D.C. 规则4.2(d)允许靠谱的滚球平台与“有权纠正靠谱的滚球平台委托人冤屈的政府官员”进行接触，而无需征得政府靠谱的滚球平台的同意,条件是靠谱的滚球平台向政府官员披露“靠谱的滚球平台的身份以及靠谱的滚球平台代表与政府对立的一方”这一事实.1 的 exception stated in 规则4.2(d)在当前或以前版本的ABA示范规则中找不到. However, Comment [5] to Model 规则4.第2条规定“[c]经法律授权的通信[因而不受本规则的限制]可包括靠谱的滚球平台代表委托人行使宪法或其他法律权利与政府通信的通信.” 另请参阅 ABA正式Op. 97-408(授权与由靠谱的滚球平台代表的政府官员沟通，“但靠谱的滚球平台沟通的唯一目的是解决政策问题”).
D .所载关于政府官员的例外的通过.C. 规则4.2(d)一直是广泛辩论和讨论的主题，其中大部分是在几十年前. 1975年，我们收到关于规则4是否适用的询盘.2的前身DR 7-104(A)(1)适用于与政府官员的接触. 当时, DR 7-104(A)(1)只是禁止靠谱的滚球平台与被代理方通信, 和, unlike the current Rule, 除政府机构或官员外没有任何语言.2 We felt that the matter was sufficiently important that we published a tentative draft opinion 和 solicited comments on that opinion. 看到 D.C. 道德Op. 80 n.1. 经过大约四年的考虑和一些公众意见, we released Opinion 80, 得出的结论是当时存在的规则禁止接触, 没有同意, “那些 . . . 谁有权就所讨论的主题事项对政府作出承诺或约束.” Id. 我们推荐, 然而, 修改规则，取消未经同意不得与政府官员接触的禁令.
我们的建议最终得到约旦委员会的赞同和通过, 就哥伦比亚特区采用美国靠谱的滚球平台协会示范规则提出了建议. 约旦委员会在其1986年提交上诉法院的报告中建议.2限于“非政府当事方”，并详细讨论了其建议的理由:
Government officials, 尤其是那些有重大决策权的人, are almost always capable of resisting any arguments or other suggestions that are not proper 和 genuinely persuasive. 此外, any government official who is in a high enough position to make binding decisions can surely be relied upon to exercise . . . 关于是否参与这种直接交流的个人判断 . . . .
建议的职业行为规则和相关意见187(11月. 19, 1986) (“Jordan Committee Report”). 的 Jordan Committee Report 指出, 除其他原因外, 政府机构“有权通过制定有关私人靠谱的滚球平台与政府官员之间通信的规章制度来保护自己。.” Id. at 188.
在发布后的公众意见征询过程中 Jordan Committee Report, the exclusion of governmental parties from D.C. 规则4.2 was again the subject of considerable comment. 看到 Analysis of Comments Submitted to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals in Response to the Court’s Order of September 1, 1988. As a result of the comment process, 上诉法院修改了约旦委员会原来的建议. 的 language restricting D.C. 规则4.2 to “non-governmental parties” was deleted, 和 D.C. 规则4.第2(d)条，以目前的形式，与现在的评论[10]和[11]一起被取代。. 第4条规则.自1990年上诉法院通过有关评论意见以来，也没有对其进行修正.
我们已经解决了D.C. 规则4.2(d) only once since 1990. 第280号意见, 问询者是一名靠谱的滚球平台，他曾在哥伦比亚特区执照委员会面前代表一名脊椎按摩师进行诉讼，该诉讼以同意令结束. 询问者认为，联委会工作人员在导致同意令的法律程序中行为不当，并进一步了解联委会成员本身对工作人员“就若干事项将其意志强加于联委会”感到不满.” D.C. 道德Op. 280 (1998). 询问者希望与一名董事会成员讨论就其客户的事宜达成的同意令，以及对工作人员行为的普遍不满. 在审查了第80号意见并讨论了对该问题的后续处理之后 Jordan Committee Report，我们得出结论，建议的接触没有违反D.C. 规则4.2. In support of our conclusion, 我们引用了评论[7](现在重新编号为评论[11]，但未作其他修改), 这就解释了靠谱的滚球平台可能“在真正的冤情方面”绕过政府靠谱的滚球平台.”
讨论
询问者提出的第一个问题是，是否允许在未经政府靠谱的滚球平台同意的情况下就正在进行诉讼的事项与政府合同干事就实质性法律问题进行沟通. 提问者认为讨论政府的基本政策立场是有区别的, 关于非双方同意的接触是由D.C. 规则4.2(d), 和 discussing substantive legal issues, 关于这一点应该事先征得同意. We do not find support for this distinction in D.C. 规则4.2(d).
Comment [11] provides the relevant guidance:
Paragraph (d) does not permit a lawyer to bypass counsel representing the government on every issue that may arise in the course of disputes with the government. It is intended to provide lawyers access to decision makers in government with respect to genuine grievances, 比如提出政府对某一争端的基本政策立场是错误的观点, 或者政府人员在争议的各个方面行为不当. 它的目的不是提供常规纠纷，如普通发现纠纷的直接途径, extensions of time or other scheduling matters, 或者类似的解决纠纷的常规方面.
有关实质性法律问题的接触似乎属于“真正的不满”的范畴，而不是与普通的发现和排期问题有关的“例行争端”. 的 reference to a “basic policy position” in Comment [11] is preceded by the language “such as” 和 is thus simply 说明 是那种不需要事先同意的“真正的不满”. A “genuine grievance” can 和 frequently does pertain to substantive legal arguments advanced by the government. One of the virtues of Comment [11] is that the line that it draws between those contacts that require consent 和 those that do not is relatively easy to discern. Even if we were empowered to re-draw this line, we would hesitate before advocating an approach which distinguishes between “basic policy positions” 和 “substantive legal arguments.“基本政策立场”可能“有缺陷”的一个原因是, 因此，根据评论[11]，她是与政府官员进行非自愿接触的允许对象。, 它是基于有缺陷的“实质性法律论据”吗.” 的 inquirer concedes that D.C. 规则4.授权靠谱的滚球平台向政府官员辩论政府的立场是错误的, 但不允许靠谱的滚球平台提及任何一方的法律论据. This seems to us unworkable in practice. 除了, making a distinction between “basic policy position[s]” 和 “substantive legal arguments” has no support in the language of D.C. 规则4.2 和 its accompanying Comments.
询问者提出的第二个问题是，私人当事人的靠谱的滚球平台(未经政府靠谱的滚球平台同意)在多大程度上可以联系其他机构或组织的官员，这些官员可能会影响政府在正在进行的诉讼中的立场，作为推动靠谱的滚球平台客户事业的一部分. 在某些情况下, 询问者认为，所联系的政府官员甚至可能不知道政府参与的具体争端或争端中提出的特定问题. If the official contacted has the “authority to redress the grievances of the lawyer’s client” then the contact is within the scope of D.C. 规则4.2(d)，只要靠谱的滚球平台作出d项所要求的适当披露.C. 规则4.2(b). If, 另一方面, 被联系的官员没有权力在此事上约束该机构, then the contact remains permissible 没有同意 because the government official is not a person represented in the matter. 看到 规则4.2(c) (for organizations, 术语“一方”或“个人”仅包括那些“有权将组织与通信所涉及的代表联系起来”的个人.”); 另请参阅 D.C. 道德Op. 80 (limiting government officials covered by the rule to “only those persons who have the power to commit or bind the government to the matter in question”).3 We note that even though we conclude that a lawyer may generally initiate contact with a government official, an official is not obligated to engage in the communication 和 may ask the lawyer to communicate with government counsel rather than directly with the official.
调查 Number: 06-08-10
批准日期:2007年5月
Published: June 2007
1. 规则4.2(d) states as follows:
This rule does not prohibit communication by a lawyer with government officials who have the authority to redress the grievances of the lawyer’s client, whether or not those grievances or the lawyer’s communications relate to matters that are the subject of the representation, provided that in the event of such communications the disclosures specified in (b) are made to the government official to whom the communication is made.
规则4.2(b) which is referenced in 规则4.2 (d)提供:
During the course of representing a client, 靠谱的滚球平台可以在未经该组织靠谱的滚球平台同意的情况下与该组织的非党派雇员就代理主题进行沟通. If the organization is an adverse party, 然而, 在与任何此类非党派雇员沟通之前, a lawyer must disclose to such employee both the lawyer’s identity 和 the fact that the lawyer represents a party that is adverse to the employee’s employer.
2. DR 7-104(A)(1)规定，在代表客户的过程中, 靠谱的滚球平台不得, 不同意:
[c]ommunicate or cause another to communicate on the subject of the representation with a party he knows to be represented by a lawyer in that matter.
3. 如果联系的政府官员是一名担任“内部顾问”的靠谱的滚球平台,，那么根据规则4的评注[5]，未经同意的接触是允许的.2.
