Rule 4.3 Dealing with Unrepresented Person

[1] An unrepresented person, particularly one not experienced in dealing with legal matters, might assume that a lawyer will provide disinterested advice concerning the law even when the lawyer represents a client. In dealing personally with any unrepresented third party on behalf of the lawyer’s client, a lawyer must take great care not to exploit these assumptions. See D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Committee Opinion 321. [2] The rule distinguishes between situations involving unrepresented third parties whose interests may be adverse to those of the lawyer’s client and those in which the third party’s interests are not in conflict with the client’s. In the former situation, the possibility of the lawyer’s compromising the unrepresented person’s interests is so great that the rule prohibits the giving of any advice, apart from the advice that the unrepresented person obtain counsel. A lawyer is free to give advice to unrepresented persons whose interests are not in conflict with those of the lawyer’s client, but only if it is made clear that the lawyer is acting in the interests of the client. Thus the lawyer should not represent to such persons, either expressly or implicitly, that the lawyer is disinterested. Furthermore, if it becomes apparent that the unrepresented person misunderstands the lawyer’s role in the matter, the lawyer must take whatever reasonable, affirmative steps are necessary to correct the misunderstanding. [3] This rule does not prohibit a lawyer from negotiating the terms of a transaction or settling a dispute with an unrepresented person. So long as the lawyer has explained that the lawyer represents an adverse party and is not representing the person, the lawyer may inform the person of the terms on which the lawyer’s client will enter into an agreement or settle a matter, prepare documents that require the person’s signature and explain the lawyer’s own view of the meaning of the document or the lawyer’s view of the underlying legal obligations. [4] This rule is not intended to restrict in any way law enforcement efforts by government lawyers that are consistent with constitutional requirements and applicable federal law. This site uses essential cookies that include tracking technologies to assist with navigation and your ability to provide feedback, analyze your use of our products and services, assist with our promotional and marketing efforts, and provide content from third parties. View Privacy Policy Accept