MA · rules
Mass. R. Prof. C. 6.4
Law reform activities affecting client interests
Rule 6.4
A lawyer may serve as a director, officer, or member of an organization involved in reform of the law or its administration notwithstanding that the reform may affect the interests of a client of the lawyer. When the lawyer knows that the interests of a client may be materially benefitted by a decision in which the lawyer participates, the lawyer shall disclose that fact but need not identify the client.
History
Comment [1] Lawyers involved in organizations seeking law reform generally do not have a client lawyer relationship with the organization. Otherwise, it might follow that a lawyer could not be involved in a bar association law reform program that might indirectly affect a client. See also Rule 1.2(b). For example, a lawyer specializing in antitrust litigation might be regarded as disqualified from participating in drafting revisions of rules governing that subject. In determining the nature and scope of participation in such activities, a lawyer should be mindful of obligations to clients under other Rules, particularly Rule 1.7. A lawyer is professionally obligated to protect the integrity of the program by making an appropriate disclosure within the organization when the lawyer knows a private client might be materially benefited. Corresponding ABA Model Rule. Identical to Model Rule 6.4. Corresponding Former Massachusetts Rule. None. But see G. L. c. 211D, § 1, as to members of the Committee for Public Counsel Services. Adopted June 9, 1997, effective January 1, 1998
Provenance
- Source
- www.mass.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-17
- Edition
- 2026-09-16
- Content hash
56304e279448f6b8c92049c53547fea98299d3954227dab8c2bf58ca233ec67c
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.