Rule Text
(a) Subject to paragraphs (c), (d), and (e), a lawyer shall abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation, and, as required by Rule 1.4, shall consult with the client as to the means by which they are to be pursued. A lawyer may take such action on behalf of the client as is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation. A lawyer shall abide by a client’s decision whether to settle a matter. In a criminal case, the lawyer shall abide by the client’s decision, after consultation with the lawyer, as to a plea to be entered, whether to waive jury trial and whether the client will testify.
(b) A lawyer’s representation of a client, including representation by appointment, does not constitute an endorsement of the client’s political, economic, social or moral views or activities.
(c) A lawyer may limit the scope of the representation if the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances and the client gives informed consent. An otherwise unrepresented person to whom limited representation is being provided or has been provided in accordance with this rule is considered to be unrepresented for purposes of Rules 4.2 and 4.3 unless the opposing lawyer knows of or has been provided with:
(1) a written notice stating that the lawyer is to communicate only with the limited representation lawyer as to the subject matter of the limited representation; or
(2) a written notice of the time period during which the lawyer is to communicate only with the limited representation lawyer concerning the subject matter of the limited representation.
(d) A lawyer shall not counsel a client to engage, or assist a client, in conduct that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, but a lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct with a client and may counsel or assist a client to make a good faith effort to determine the validity, scope, meaning or application of the law.
(e) When a lawyer is appointed to act as a guardian ad litem, the lawyer shall represent what he or she reasonably believes to be in the best interests of the individual. The lawyer shall not, therefore, be bound by the individual’s objectives for the representation. The lawyer shall, however, consult with the individual, in a manner appropriate to the age and/or abilities of the individual, as to the objectives the lawyer intends to pursue, as well as the means by which those objectives will be pursued.
Amendment history: Amended January 9, 2002, effective April 1, 2002; amended February 14, 2002, effective April 1, 2002; amended April 11, 2006, effective July 1, 2006; amended June 28, 2011, effective October 1, 2011; amended August 5, 2014, effective October 6, 2014; amended February 6, 2024, effective April 15, 2024. Representation of client. — Suspension of an attorney from the practice of law for three years was appropriate because the attorney failed to consult with a client regarding motions to which the attorney did not file timely responses and failed to convey a settlement offer. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility v. Jerabek, 2022 WY 134, 2022 WY 134A, 519 P.3d 309, 2022 Wyo. LEXIS 137 (Wyo. 2022). Conflicting roles of attorney and guardian ad litem. — As legal counsel to the child, the attorney-guardian ad litem is obligated to explain to the child, if possible, that the attorney-guardian ad litem is charged with protecting the child’s best interest and that information may be provided to the court which would otherwise be protected by the attorney-client relationship. Clark v. Alexander, 953 P.2d 145, 1998 Wyo. LEXIS 20 (Wyo. 1998). Counsel appointed to represent a child must, as far as reasonably possible, maintain a normal client-lawyer relationship with the child and is not free to independently determine and advocate the child’s “best interests” if contrary to the preferences of the child. Clark v. Alexander, 953 P.2d 145, 1998 Wyo. LEXIS 20 (Wyo. 1998). Criminal conduct. — Where the matter was before the court upon a “Report and Recommendation to the Wyoming Supreme Court,” by the Board of Professional Responsibility for the Wyoming State Bar, the attorney violated Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 1.2 (d), 8.4(c) and 8.4(d) by counseling a client regarding how to unlawfully avoid tax consequences of interest earned from the settlement monies. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility v. Fulton, 2006 WY 51, 133 P.3d 514, 2006 Wyo. LEXIS 61 (Wyo. 2006), reh’g denied, 2006 Wyo. LEXIS 76 (Wyo. June 6, 2006), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 955, 127 S. Ct. 406, 166 L. Ed. 2d 273, 2006 U.S. LEXIS 7548 (U.S. 2006). Notice of appeal. — Attorney violated Wyo. R. Prof. Conduct 1.2 by failing to file a notice of appeal as requested by his client. Bd. of Prof’l Responsibility v. Cundy, 2008 WY 158, 201 P.3d 419, 2008 Wyo. LEXIS 166 (Wyo. 2008).
Committee Notes
Allocation of Authority between Client and Lawyer. [1] Paragraph (a) confers upon the client the ultimate authority to determine the purposes to be served by legal representation, within the limits imposed by law and the lawyer’s professional obligations. The decisions specified in paragraph
(a) , such as whether to settle a civil matter, must also be made by the client. See Rule 1.4(a)(1) for the lawyer’s duty to communicate with the client about such decisions. With respect to the means by which the client’s objectives are to be pursued, the lawyer shall consult with the client as required by Rule 1.4(a)(2) and may take such action as is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation. [2] On occasion, however, a lawyer and a client may disagree about the means to be used to accomplish the client’s objectives. Clients normally defer to the special knowledge and skill of their lawyer with respect to the means to be used to accomplish their objectives, particularly with respect to technical, legal and tactical matters. Conversely, lawyers usually defer to the client regarding such questions as the expense to be incurred and concern for third persons who might be adversely affected. Because of the varied nature of the matters about which a lawyer and client might disagree and because the actions in question may implicate the interests of a tribunal or other persons, this Rule does not prescribe how such disagreements are to be resolved. Other law, however, may be applicable and should be consulted by the lawyer. The lawyer should also consult with the client and seek a mutually acceptable resolution of the disagreement. If such efforts are unavailing and the lawyer has a fundamental disagreement with the client, the lawyer may withdraw from the representation. See Rule 1.16(b)(4). Conversely, the client may resolve the disagreement by discharging the lawyer. See Rule 1.16(a)(3). [3] At the outset of a representation, the client may authorize the lawyer to take specific action on the client’s behalf without further consultation. Absent a material change in circumstances and subject to Rule 1.4, a lawyer may rely on such an advance authorization. The client may, however, revoke such authority at any time. [4] In a case in which the client appears to be suffering diminished capacity, the lawyer’s duty to abide by the client’s decisions is to be guided by reference to Rule 1.14. Independence from Client’s Views or Activities. [5] Legal representation should not be denied to people who are unable to afford legal services, or whose cause is controversial or the subject of popular disapproval. By the same token, representing a client does not constitute approval of the client’s views or activities. Agreements Limiting Scope of Representation. [6] Subsection (c) is intended to facilitate the provision of unbundled legal services, especially to low-income clients. “Unbundled” means that a lawyer may agree to perform a limited task for a client without incurring the responsibility to investigate or consider other aspects of the client’s matter. The scope of services to be provided by a lawyer may be limited by agreement with the client or by the terms under which the lawyer’s services are made available to the client. When a lawyer has been retained by an insurer to represent an insured, for example, the representation may be limited to matters related to the insurance coverage. A limited representation may be appropriate because the client has limited objectives for the representation. In addition, the terms upon which representation is undertaken may exclude specific means that might otherwise be used to accomplish the client’s objectives. Such limitations may exclude actions that the client thinks are too costly or that the lawyer regards as repugnant or imprudent. [7] If a lawyer assists in drafting a pleading, the document shall include a statement that the document was prepared with the assistance of counsel and shall include the name and address of the lawyer who provided the assistance. Such a statement does not constitute an entry of appearance or otherwise mean that the lawyer represents the client in the matter beyond assisting in the preparation of the document(s). [8] Although this Rule affords the lawyer and client substantial latitude to limit the representation, the limitation must be reasonable under the circumstances. If, for example, a client’s objective is limited to securing general information about the law the client needs in order to handle a common and typically uncomplicated legal problem, the lawyer and client may agree that the lawyer’s services will be limited to a brief telephone consultation. Such a limitation, however, would not be reasonable if the time allotted was not sufficient to yield advice upon which the client could rely. Although an agreement for a limited representation does not exempt a lawyer from the duty to provide competent representation, the limitation is a factor to be considered when determining the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation. See Rule 1.1. [9] All agreements concerning a lawyer’s representation of a client must accord with the Rules of Professional Conduct and other law. See, e.g., Rules 1.1, 1.8, and 5.6. Criminal, Fraudulent and Prohibited Transactions. [10] Paragraph (d) prohibits a lawyer from knowingly counseling or assisting a client to commit a crime or fraud. This prohibition, however, does not preclude the lawyer from giving an honest opinion about the actual consequences that appear likely to result from a client’s conduct. Nor does the fact that a client uses advice in a course of action that is criminal or fraudulent of itself make a lawyer a party to the course of action. There is a critical distinction between presenting an analysis of legal aspects of questionable conduct and recommending the means by which a crime or fraud might be committed with impunity. [11] When the client’s course of action has already begun and is continuing, the lawyer’s responsibility is especially delicate. The lawyer is required to avoid assisting the client, for example, by drafting or delivering documents that the lawyer knows are fraudulent or by suggesting how the wrongdoing might be concealed. A lawyer may not continue assisting a client in conduct that the lawyer originally supposed was legally proper but then discovers is criminal or fraudulent. The lawyer must, therefore, withdraw from the representation of the client in the matter. See Rule 1.16(a). In some cases, withdrawal alone might be insufficient. It may be necessary for the lawyer to give notice of the fact of withdrawal and to disaffirm any opinion, document, affirmation or the like. See Rule 4.1. [12] Where the client is a fiduciary, the lawyer may be charged with special obligations in dealings with a beneficiary. [13] Paragraph (d) applies whether or not the defrauded party is a party to the transaction. Hence, a lawyer must not participate in a transaction to effectuate criminal or fraudulent avoidance of tax liability. Paragraph (d) does not preclude undertaking a criminal defense incident to a general retainer for legal services to a lawful enterprise. The last clause of paragraph (d) recognizes that determining the validity or interpretation of a statute or regulation may require a course of action involving disobedience of the statute or regulation or of the interpretation placed upon it by governmental authorities. [14] If a lawyer comes to know or reasonably should know that a client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law or if the lawyer intends to act contrary to the client’s instructions, the lawyer must consult with the client regarding the limitations on the lawyer’s conduct. See Rule 1.4(a)(5). Definitional Cross-References “Fraudulent” See Rule 1.0(e) “Informed consent” See Rule 1.0(f) “Knows” See Rule 1.0(g) “Reasonable” See Rule 1.0(i)
