Colo. RPC 4.3

History

Source: Comment amended and adopted June 17, 1999, effective July 1, 1999; entire Appendix repealed and readopted April 12, 2007, effective January 1, 2008; Comment [1] amended, effective April 6, 2016. COMMENT [1] An unrepresented person, particularly one not experienced in dealing with legal mat- ters, might assume that a lawyer is disinterested in loyalties or is a disinterested authority on the law even when the lawyer represents a client. In order to avoid a misunderstanding, a lawyer will typically need to identify the lawyer’s cli- ent and, where necessary, explain that the client has interests opposed to those of the unrepresented person. For misunderstandings that sometimes arise when a lawyer for an or- ganization deals with an unrepresented constitu- ent, see Rule 1.13(f). [2] The Rule distinguishes between situa- tions involving unrepresented persons whose interests may be adverse to those of the law- yer’s client and those in which the person’s interests are not in conflict with the client’s. In the former situation, the possibility that the law- yer will compromise the unrepresented person’s interests is so great that the Rule prohibits the giving of any advice, apart from the advice to obtain counsel. Whether a lawyer is giving im- permissible advice may depend on the experi- ence and sophistication of the unrepresented person, as well as the setting in which the be- havior and comments occur. 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 underly- ing legal obligations. [2A] The lawyer must comply with the re- quirements of this Rule for pro se parties to whom limited representation has been provided, in accordance with C.R.C.P. 11(b), C.R.C.P. 311(b), Rule 1.2, and Rule 4.2. Such parties are considered to be unrepresented for purposes of this Rule. ANNOTATION Law reviews. For article, ‘‘Discrete Task Representation a/k/a Unbundled Legal Ser- vices’’, see 29 Colo. Law. 5 (Jan. 2000). For article, ‘‘The New Rules of Professional Con- duct: Significant Changes for In-House Coun- sel’’, see 36 Colo. Law. 71 (Nov. 2007). Annotator’s note. Rule 4.3 is similar to Rule 4.3 as it existed prior to the 2007 repeal and readoption of the Colorado rules of professional conduct. Relevant cases construing that provi- sion have been included in the annotations to this rule. A noble motive does not justify departure from any rule of professional conduct. A prosecutor trying to protect public safety is not immune from the code of professional conduct when he or she chooses deception as means for protecting public safety. In re Pautler, 47 P.3d 1175 (Colo. 2002). There is no imminent public harm, duress, or choice of evils exception or defense for a prosecutor to the rules of professional con- duct. In re Pautler, 47 P.3d 1175 (Colo. 2002). Conduct violating this rule in conjunction with other disciplinary rules is sufficient to justify suspension. In re Meyers, 981 P.2d 143 (Colo. 1999).