伦理意见258
规则4的适用.2(a) to Lawyers as Parties Proceeding Pro Se
一个澳门赌场官网 who is a party in a matter and is proceeding 箴se 在未经对方澳门赌场官网同意的情况下，不能直接与已知在该事项中由澳门赌场官网代理的另一方沟通.
适用的规则
- 规则4.2 (Communication Between Lawyer and Opposing Parties)
调查
初学的, 私人医生, 请求关于作为当事人的澳门赌场官网和正在进行诉讼的澳门赌场官网的意见 箴se 可以，根据规则4.2, 在未征得对方澳门赌场官网同意的情况下，直接与同一事务的另一方当事人进行沟通.
规则4.2(a), “不接触”规则, 规定,, “[d]uring the course of representing a client, 澳门赌场官网不得就代理事项与已知由另一澳门赌场官网代理的当事人进行沟通或促使他人进行沟通, 除非澳门赌场官网事先得到代表该另一方当事人的澳门赌场官网的同意，或者法律授权澳门赌场官网这样做.然而，对规则4的评论[1].第2条清楚地指出“方 to a matter may communicate directly with each other” (emphasis added).
这个调查, 因此, 提出了一个新颖的问题，如何, 如果有的话, 当事各方在没有澳门赌场官网的允许或在场的情况下直接相互通信的自由，因该事项的其中一方是澳门赌场官网而改变或无效, 自己, 一个澳门赌场官网.1
讨论
为了这次调查的目的, the Committee assumes that (1) the contemplated communication is directly with a party3 在这件事上, not a non-party employee or other non-party individual; (2) the dispute is a “matter” for purposes of 规则4.2(a); (3) the other party is represented by counsel; (4) the communication is about the “subject of the representation;” and (5) the direct communication is not otherwise “authorized by law.”
The Committee recognizes that neither the ABA Model 职业行为准则 nor the D.C. 职业行为准则 speaks directly to 箴se 表示问题.3 这个差距并没有结束我们的调查, 然而, nor does it create a professional ethics vacuum for lawyer-方 who choose to proceed 箴se.
The Committee has considered the societal interests and purpose behind 规则4.第2条及其评注，并已阅读规则4.2 and its commentary in the context of all the professional conduct rules.4 In light of these 4 principles and the language of 规则4.2, 我们的结论是，在某一事项中进行代理诉讼的澳门赌场官网不得与已知由另一澳门赌场官网在该事项中代表的一方就该事项的主题进行沟通或导致另一方就该事项的主题进行沟通, unless the lawyer-party has the prior consent of the lawyer representing such other party.
为了避免荒谬的结果, 然而, the Committee excludes from the reach of this opinion situations in 哪一个 the other party, 如果不是澳门赌场官网, ordinarily would not consult 一个澳门赌场官网 or retain 一个澳门赌场官网 to represent him. 例如, 作为澳门赌场官网的消费者，如果衣服被干洗店损坏了，可以自由地直接向干洗店经理提出问题, rather than having to contact the lawyer for the dry cleaners. 类似的, 澳门赌场官网邻居可以直接与邻居就吵闹的宠物或倒在澳门赌场官网财产上的树进行交涉, without concern whether the neighbor has 一个澳门赌场官网. 或者一个澳门赌场官网公民可以写信给一家公司的首席执行官，抗议其计划中的主题公园. 在这种情况下，建议澳门赌场官网一方不能直接与另一个人或实体打交道是不合理的. 然而, when a dispute has matured to the point where a person would ordinarily retain counsel, the lawyer-party must treat 自己 as covered by 规则4.2.
规则4.2 has at its core the concern that lawyers generally are in a better position, 通过教育和培训,5 在与外行直接沟通的过程中，压倒外行并利用其缺乏法律知识. 法院和本委员会注意到，该规则的目的是防止澳门赌场官网可能哄骗陈述或和解，或以其他方式利用不知情和暂时没有咨询的非专业人士.6 因此, 法院已经注意到，“未经咨询的外行在与代表[对方]的澳门赌场官网就复杂的法律问题进行谈判时，很难整理所需的信息和远见。”.”7/p>
法院也遵守了规则4.2 helps prevent the inadvertent disclosure of privileged information8 and has “preserved the proper functioning of the legal system”9 by protecting the integrity of the lawyer-client relationship. 当定位于进行哄骗的澳门赌场官网是澳门赌场官网-当事人诉讼时，这些社会关注和利益的有效性丝毫不减 箴se.
对规则4的注释[1].2, 哪一个 permits direct, interparty communications, does not create an exception to 规则4.2. 这一评论仅仅反映了美国的法理传统，即当事人通常可以自由地相互直接沟通. 这一传统是基于这样一种信念，即当事人有权在没有澳门赌场官网参与或同意的情况下解决纠纷.
然而, this right of the 方 is not absolute. A party cannot achieve a settlement from another uncounseled party through “duress, 骚扰, 或者专横的行为.”10 正是这种对传统上允许的党际通信的限制优先于对规则4的注释.当事人一方为澳门赌场官网的.
一个澳门赌场官网, 就像一个外行, has the unqualified right to represent 自己 in a matter, 即使, 正如一句古老的谚语所说, 这样她就得到了一个傻瓜做客户. 但是，与外行党不同的是 箴se 澳门赌场官网在与非专业对手打交道时，总是带着她的专业技能和法律知识. 的lawyer-party, no matter whether she is acting in her “lawyer” or her “party” capacity, still retains a presumptively unfair advantage over an opposing party. We 因此 conclude that 一个澳门赌场官网 must comply with the requirements of 规则4.2(a) when she represents a client, be that client the lawyer 自己 or another party.
调查没有. 92-6-19
1995年9月20日通过
1. This opinion addresses only the situation in 哪一个 the lawyer-party is proceeding 箴se. We do not address the situation in 哪一个 the lawyer-party is represented by counsel.
2. 这样假设, the Committee notes that the term “party” is not limited to formal 方 in litigation. 规则4.评论[4]. 参见规则4.2(c), 哪一个, 就本条而言, 将“party”定义为“任何人”, including an employee of a party organization, 谁有权力约束一个党组织，使其与通讯所涉及的代表相联系.“我们还注意到第四条规则.2(d)将澳门赌场官网与能够纠正当事人冤屈的政府官员的通信排除在规则的范围之外.
3. In fact, the 规则 appear to embody two assumptions—that the lawyer is (1) representing (i.e., acting as lawyer for) a (2) third party (i.e.(她本人以外的客户). 有些法院特别认为，某些纪律规则不适用于澳门赌场官网为自己辩护的情况. 劳森v. 内华达电力公司., 739 F. 增刊. 23, 24 (D.D.C. 1990年)(纪律规则要求澳门赌场官网在被传为证人时退出审判，但不要求取消正在自行进行诉讼的澳门赌场官网的资格). 参见O 'Neil v. 卑尔根，公元前452年.2d 337, 344 (D.C. 1982); Koger v. 韦伯，公元455年.Y.S.2d 935, 937 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1982); Downey, Fools and Their Ethics: The Professional Responsibility of Pro Se Attorneys, 34 B.C. L. 牧师. 529(1993)(主张采用新的美国澳门赌场官网协会示范规则，保留澳门赌场官网自我代理的权利，但如果澳门赌场官网的自我代理违反通常适用于澳门赌场官网代理他人行为的道德标准，则敦促澳门赌场官网聘请外部澳门赌场官网).
4. Under the 规则, lawyers are admonished not to harass opponents. 见规则1.16 (一个澳门赌场官网 should withdraw if the representation will result in a violation of the 职业行为准则); 3.1 (一个澳门赌场官网 shall not bring or defend action except on a non-frivolous basis); 3.2 (一个澳门赌场官网 should not delay a case solely to harass or maliciously injure another); 3.4 (一个澳门赌场官网 shall deal fairly with opposing 方 and counsel in pretrial and trial matters); 3.5 (一个澳门赌场官网 shall respect the impartiality and decorum of the tribunal); 4.(澳门赌场官网不得与由澳门赌场官网代理的当事人谈论代理事项).
5. 参见Valassis v. Samelson, 143f.R.D. 118, 120 (E.D. 密歇根州. 1992); Brown v. St. 约瑟夫县，北纬148年.R.D. 246, 249 (N.D. 印第安纳州. 1993); Curley v. 坎伯兰农场公司., 134 F.R.D. 77, 82 (N.D.J. 1991); University Patents, Inc. v. 克利格曼，737 F. 增刊. 325, 327 (E.D. Pa. 1990); Papanicolaou v. 纽约大通曼哈顿银行.A., 720 F. 增刊. 1080, 1084 (S.D.N.Y. 1989); Frey v. 卫生与公众服务部., 106 F.R.D. 32, 34 (E.D.N.Y. 1985); 美国诉. Galanis, 685 F. 增刊. 901, 902 (S.D.N.Y. 1988); Kurlatzik, The Prohibition on Communication with an Adverse Party, 51 Conn. B.J. 136, 145-46 (1977).
6. 参见美国诉. 巴彻勒，484楼. 增刊. 812, 813 (E.D. Pa. 1980); Sherrod v. 家具Ctr., 769 F. 增刊. 1021, 1022 (W.D. 田纳西州. 1991); Hanntz v. Shiley公司., 766 F. 增刊. 258, 265 (D.N.J. 1991); Polycast科技公司. v. 二氯萘酯公司., 129 F.R.D. 621, 625 (S.D.N.Y. 1990); 赖特v. 团体健康医院., 691 P.2d 564, 567(华盛顿州. 1984). 参见D.C. 澳门赌场官网公会法律道德通讯. Op. 80 (1979); ABA Comm. on Professional Ethics and Grievances Formal Op. 108 (1934); Frey v. 卫生与公共服务部副部长., 106 F.R.D. 在东经34度.D.N.Y. 1985); Leubsdorf, Communicating With Another Lawyer’s Client: The Lawyer’s Veto and the Client’s Interests, 127 U. Pa. L. 牧师. 683 (1979).
7. 美国诉. 巴彻勒，484楼. 增刊. at 813. Our opinion does not turn on the level of sophistication of the lay party in a matter. 这样的主观分析, 我们相信, 是否会在未来案件中对澳门赌场官网-当事人行为的适当性造成不必要的混淆和不确定性.
8. Polycast科技公司. v. 二氯萘酯公司., 129 F.R.D. at 625.
9. 赖特v. 团体健康医院., 691 P.2d at 567; Carter v. 卡玛拉斯(公元430年.2d 1058, 1059 (R.I. 1981).
10. 参见Lewis v. S.S. 鲍恩，534 F.2d 1115, 1122 (3d Cir. 1976).
