Iowa R. Prof'l Conduct 32:4.2

(a) In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the

representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the

matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law

or a court order.

(b) An otherwise unrepresented person to whom limited representation is being provided

or has been provided in accordance with rule 32:1.2(c) is considered to be unrepresented

for purposes of this rule unless the opposing lawyer knows of, or has been provided with, a

written notice of appearance under which, or a written notice of time period during which, the

opposing lawyer is to communicate with the limited-representation lawyer as to the subject

matter within the limited scope of representation.

Comment

[1] This rule contributes to the proper functioning of the legal system by protecting a person who

has chosen to be represented by a lawyer in a matter against possible overreaching by other lawyers

who are participating in the matter, interference by those lawyers with the client-lawyer relationship,

and the uncounseled disclosure of information relating to the representation.

[2] This rule applies to communications with any person who is represented by counsel concerning

the matter to which the communication relates.

[3] The rule applies even though the represented person initiates or consents to the communication.

A lawyer must immediately terminate communication with a person if, after commencing

communication, the lawyer learns that the person is one with whom communication is not permitted

by this rule.

[4] This rule does not prohibit communication with a represented person, or an employee or

agent of such a person, concerning matters outside the representation. For example, the existence

of a controversy between a government agency and a private party, or between two organizations,

does not prohibit a lawyer for either from communicating with nonlawyer representatives of the

other regarding a separate matter. Nor does this rule preclude communication with a represented

person who is seeking advice from a lawyer who is not otherwise representing a client in the matter.

A lawyer may not make a communication prohibited by this rule through the acts of another. See

rule 32:8.4(a). Parties to a matter may communicate directly with each other, and a lawyer is not

prohibited from advising a client concerning a communication that the client is legally entitled to

make. Also, a lawyer having independent justification or legal authorization for communicating with

a represented person is permitted to do so.

[5] Communications authorized by law may include communications by a lawyer on behalf of a

client who is exercising a constitutional or other legal right to communicate with the government.

Communications authorized by law may also include investigative activities of lawyers representing

governmental entities, directly or through investigative agents, prior to the commencement of

criminal or civil enforcement proceedings. When communicating with the accused in a criminal

matter, a government lawyer must comply with this rule in addition to honoring the constitutional

rights of the accused. The fact that a communication does not violate a state or federal constitutional

right is insufficient to establish that the communication is permissible under this rule.

[6] A lawyer who is uncertain whether a communication with a represented person is permissible

may seek a court order. A lawyer may also seek a court order in exceptional circumstances to

authorize a communication that would otherwise be prohibited by this rule, for example, where

communication with a person represented by counsel is necessary to avoid reasonably certain injury.

[7] In the case of a represented organization, this rule prohibits communications with a constituent

of the organization who supervises, directs, or regularly consults with the organization’s lawyer

concerning the matter or has authority to obligate the organization with respect to the matter or

whose act or omission in connection with the matter may be imputed to the organization for purposes

of civil or criminal liability. Consent of the organization’s lawyer is not required for communication

with a former constituent. If a constituent of the organization is represented in the matter by his or

her own counsel, the consent by that counsel to a communication will be sufficient for purposes

of this rule. Compare rule 32:3.4(f). In communicating with a current or former constituent of an

organization, a lawyer must not use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of the

organization. See rule 32:4.4.

[8] The prohibition on communications with a represented person only applies in circumstances

where the lawyer knows that the person is in fact represented in the matter to be discussed. This

means that the lawyer has actual knowledge of the fact of the representation; but such actual

knowledge may be inferred from the circumstances. See rule 32:1.0(f). Thus, the lawyer cannot

evade the requirement of obtaining the consent of counsel by closing eyes to the obvious.

[9] In the event the person with whom the lawyer communicates is not known to be represented

by counsel in the matter, the lawyer’s communications are subject to rule 32:4.3.