Ind. Prof. Cond. Rule 5.2

Effective January 1, 1987

(a) A lawyer is bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct notwithstanding that the lawyer

acted at the direction of another person.

(b) A subordinate lawyer does not violate the Rules of Professional Conduct if that lawyer acts

in accordance with a supervisory lawyer's reasonable resolution of an arguable question of

professional duty.

Comment

[1] Although a lawyer is not relieved of responsibility for a violation by the fact that the lawyer acted at the direction of a supervisor, that fact may be relevant in determining whether

a lawyer had the knowledge required to render conduct a violation of the Rules. For

example, if a subordinate filed a frivolous pleading at the direction of a supervisor, the subordinate would not be guilty of a professional violation unless the subordinate knew of the

document's frivolous character.

[2] When lawyers in a supervisor-subordinate relationship encounter a matter involving

professional judgment as to ethical duty, the supervisor may assume responsibility for

making the judgment. Otherwise a consistent course of action or position could not be

taken. If the question can reasonably be answered only one way, the duty of both lawyers

is clear and they are equally responsible for fulfilling it. However, if the question is reasonably arguable, someone has to decide upon the course of action. That authority ordin-

arily reposes in the supervisor, and a subordinate may be guided accordingly. For

example, if a question arises whether the interests of two clients conflict under Rule 1.7,

the supervisor's reasonable resolution of the question should protect the subordinate pro-

fessionally if the resolution is subsequently challenged.