Ex Parte Submission of Proposed Order to Judge
Opinion rules that a lawyer must give the opposing counsel a copy of a proposed order simultaneously with the lawyer's submission of the proposed order to a judge in an ex parte communication.
Attorney A represents a prisoner condemned to death. He files a motion for appropriate relief ("MAR") seeking a new trial, pursuant to G.S. §15A-1415 et seq., by mailing the motion to the clerk of Superior Court with a letter requesting that the MAR be brought to the court's attention. Attorney A also serves a copy of the motion on Attorney B who is the district attorney and represents the state of North Carolina in this matter. Attorney C, an assistant attorney general, also represents the state in the matter.
After receiving the MAR, Attorney C prepares an answer and proposed order. The proposed order decides numerous contested factual and legal issues in the state's favor, dismisses the MAR, and includes space for the judge's signature. Attorney B delivers the MAR, the unfiled answer, the proposed order, and documents from the court file to Superior Court Judge D in chambers. Judge D has had no previous involvement in the case. Attorney B offers to make any modifications to the proposed order requested by Judge D.
Subsequently, Judge D signs the proposed order and returns it to Attorney B. Attorney B then files the answer and the signed order with the clerk of court and mails copies of the documents to Attorney A. This occurs five days after Attorney B delivered the answer and proposed order to Judge D. When Attorney A receives the answer and order from Attorney B, it is the first notice that Attorney A has received that the case was under consideration by Judge D. May lawyers make a written presentation to a judge without timely notice to the opposing lawyer?
No. Rule 3.5 of the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct addresses a lawyer's duty to maintain the impartiality of a tribunal. Comment  to Rule 3.5 includes the following observations:
All litigants and lawyers should have access to tribunals on an equal basis. Generally, in adversary proceedings, a lawyer should not communicate with a judge relative to a matter pending before, or which is to be brought before, a tribunal over which the judge presides in circumstances which might have the effect or give the appearance of granting undue advantage to one party.
This advice should be heeded in all ex partecommunications with a judge.
Rule 3.5(a)(3)(ii) permits a lawyer to communicate ex parte with a judge in writing only "if a copy of the writing is furnished simultaneously to the opposing party." The repealed rule on the same topic, repealed Rule 7.10(b)(2), allowed a written communication with a judge "if the lawyer promptly deliver[ed] a copy of the writing to opposing counsel..." The rule was changed to emphasize the importance of notifying the opposing counsel of an ex parte written communication with a judge. Delivery of a document to opposing counsel five days after its submission to a judge would not be "prompt" under the standard of the repealed rule and it utterly fails to meet the requirement of "simultaneous" delivery under Rule 3.5(a)(3)(ii). To comply with Rule 3.5, a lawyer must hand deliver a copy of the written communication to the opposing lawyer at the same time or prior to the time that the written communication is hand delivered to the judge or, if the written communication is mailed to the judge, the lawyer must put the written communication in the mail for delivery to opposing counsel at the same time or before it is placed in the mail for delivery to the judge.
It is the practice of the bar in this judicial district to give the opposing lawyer prior or contemporaneous notice of the submission to the court of a proposed order and the opportunity to comment upon or object to the proposed order. May a lawyer fail to comply with this practice by submitting a proposed order to a judge in an ex parte communication prior to providing the proposed order to the opposing counsel?
No. See opinion #1 above. Such conduct also violates Rule 3.5(a)(4)(i) which prohibits conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal, including "failing to comply with known local customs of courtesy or practice of the bar or a particular tribunal without giving opposing counsel timely notice of the intent not to comply." Moreover, failure to give the opposing lawyer an opportunity to comment upon or object to a proposed order before it is submitted to the judge is unprofessional and may be prejudicial to the administration of justice. It is the more professional practice for a lawyer to provide the opposing counsel with a copy of a proposed order in advance of delivering the proposed order to the judge and thereby give the opposing counsel an adequate opportunity to comment upon or object to the proposed order.
At a minimum, Rule 3.5(a)(3)(ii) requires a lawyer to furnish the opposing lawyer with a copy of the proposed order simultaneously with its delivery to the judge and, if the proposed order is furnished to the opposing counsel simultaneously, Rule 3.3(d) requires the lawyer to disclose to the judge in the ex parte communication that the opposing lawyer has received a copy of the proposed order but has not had an opportunity to present any comments or objections to the judge. Rule 3.3(d) provides that "in an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of all material facts known to the lawyer which will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse."