Skip to main content

Communication Between Opposing Parties

Adopted: October 18, 1991

Opinion rules that an attorney may acquiesce in a client's communication with an opposing party who is represented without the other attorney's consent, but may not actively encourage or participate in such communication.

Editor's Note: But see Rule 4.2(a) of the Revised Rules.


Attorney A represented a passenger who suffered serious injuries when thrown from an auto driven by a fraternity friend who was represented by Attorney B. Attorney B also represented the father of the driver under family purpose allegations. Attorney C represented the liability carrier. The injuries sustained by the plaintiff were severe and the liability carrier indicated that it would pay its limits. The principal issue was the contribution of the driver and his father. A few days before the scheduled trial and after inconclusive negotiations between the attorneys on the excess aspect, Attorney B permitted his client, the driver, to telephone Attorney A's client who was a military officer in another state in an effort to negotiate a settlement. Attorney A had no knowledge of the communication until receiving a call from his client. Confusion resulted over what the plaintiff agreed to accept. Attorney A protested to Attorneys B and C concerning the direct communication with his client. Again, without the knowledge of Attorney A but with the permission of Attorney B, the defendant-driver contacted Attorney A's client and attempted to resolve the amount and method of paying the excess.

Is it permissible for an attorney to allow his client to contact the adverse party and attempt to negotiate settlement without the knowledge or permission of the attorney for the adverse party, even though at one time the parties may have been close friends?


Yes. Opposing parties themselves may communicate with each other with or without the consent of their lawyers about any matters they deem appropriate. Such communications may include efforts to negotiate a resolution of a controversy between the parties, the results of which may be reported to the parties' lawyers. At the same time Rule 7.4(a) provides: "During the course of his representation of a client, a lawyer shall not: (1) communicate 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 unless he has the prior consent of the lawyer representing such other party or is authorized by law to do so." Although client contact with the opposing represented party can be allowed or permitted by the attorney, the attorney cannot cause (by active encouragement, client preparation, or personal participation) such communication so as to accomplish indirectly what he or she could not do directly due to the prohibition of Rule 7.4(a). The lawyer must be careful to distinguish between active encouragement and participation on the one hand and passive acquiescence on the other. It is improper for the attorney to use his or her client as an agent, or to use any other actual agent of the attorney, to communicate with the opposing represented party in violation of Rule 7.4(a).

This opinion supersedes CPR 150.

Back to top