伦理意见326

将对委托人不利的人转介给另一位澳博app

当一个潜在客户与澳博app接洽，要求澳博app做对现有客户不利的陈述时, 在拒绝这个案子之后, 澳博app可能会把潜在客户推荐给另一位澳博app.

适用的规则

• 规则1.3(勤奋与热情)
• 规则1.4(沟通)
• 规则1.6(信息保密)
• 规则1.(利益冲突:一般规则)
• 规则4.3(处理无代表人士)

调查

A lawyer is approached by a person seeking representation in a matter adverse to a party with whom the lawyer has an on-going lawyer-client relationship. 澳博app拒绝代理后，可以将当事人转介给其他澳博app?

讨论

Lawyers frequently decline representations but suggest the names of other lawyers who might represent the potential client. 例如, a lawyer who is approached by a person seeking to write a will might refer that person to another lawyer or other lawyers who have expertise in trusts and estates law that the referring lawyer lacks. A lawyer who represents a client in a grand jury investigation might refer another person who has been subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury to another lawyer or other lawyers to avoid a possible conflict of interest. 但是，当有人想起诉现有客户时，澳博app的义务是什么呢? 就本意见而言，我们假定澳博app将拒绝代理.¹ 澳博app可以向希望起诉其委托人的人推荐另一名澳博app或澳博app名单吗?²

职业行为准则

《澳博app》并没有直接提到这种情况. 我们也无法直接从其他司法管辖区找到权威. 两个规则似乎是间接相关的. 第一，规则4.3提供了:

代表委托人与没有澳博app代表的人进行交易, 澳博app不得:

(a)向无澳博app代表的人提供咨询意见，但请其聘请澳博app的建议除外, if the interests of such person are or have a reasonable possibility of being in conflict with the interests of the lawyer’s client . . . .

规则4.3(a)考虑与正在审议的调查不同的情况, 也就是说，澳博app已经代表客户处理了一件可能对未被代表的人不利的事情. The inquiry presumes either that the matter has not yet been initiated or that the lawyer does not represent the existing client in that particular matter.³ Nor does the Rule address whether it is appropriate for the lawyer to recommend a specific lawyer or list of lawyers whom the unrepresented person might engage as opposed to advising the person that he needs to engage (unspecified) counsel. 然而，我们可以从规则4中提炼出来.3(a)允许澳博app向无澳博app代表的人提供咨询意见, 对她的委托人不利, 保留澳博app，即使她的客户在没有澳博app的情况下可能会获得战术优势. Lawyers frequently give this advice and tell persons potentially adverse to their clients that they ought to engage counsel.

规则1.3也是切线相关的. In addition to the requirement that a lawyer represent her client zealously and diligently within the bounds of the law, 规则1.3(a)规定“澳博app不得故意: . . . (2)在业务关系中对委托人造成偏见或损害.“澳博app不得损害当事人利益的要求并不意味着, 然而, 澳博app必须争取一切可能的战术优势. 对规则1的注释[1].3 provides that the duty of zealous representation does not require a lawyer to press for every advantage that might be realized for a client. 此外, 热心的代理有时必须受到澳博app对司法行政的义务的制约. 事实上, certain conduct that might arguably prejudice a client’s case is mandatory under the 规则 such as the requirement in 规则3.3(a)(3)澳博app披露不利于客户立场的不利和处分性法律权力, 如果她的对手忽视了这一点.

Recommending that an adverse person retain counsel does not constitute damage or prejudice to a client within the meaning of 规则1.3(a). 规则4.3(a)特别允许这样的建议. 在调查的情况下, 当事人在接触澳博app之前已经决定聘请澳博app的情况, 这样的一般性建议是多余的. We do not believe that the further step of recommending a specific lawyer or list of lawyers prejudices the referring lawyer’s existing client. 我们认为，在做这样的介绍, 澳博app将诚信行事，并将推荐称职和独立的澳博app. 首先，即使没有推荐信，这个人也几乎肯定会找澳博app. 第二个, it would be mere speculation to conclude that the lawyer that the person might find on his own would not be as competent as the one recommended by the conflicted lawyer. 澳博app也可以这么好, 更好的, 或者不如有矛盾的澳博app可能会推荐的好. 此外, we cannot assume that it is disadvantageous to the referring lawyer’s existing client for its adversary to be represented by competent counsel. 在许多情况下，有能力的对方澳博app可能有助于达成合理解决争端的办法.

更多的基本上, inherent in our adversary system is the principle that persons ought to be represented by competent lawyers and that disputes ought to be resolved on their merits. 协助某人获得合格的代理完全符合这一原则. 一旦问题被加入, 澳博app可以而且应该采取一切必要的合法和道德措施来维护委托人的立场. 协助对手获得合格的代表, 这样问题就可以合并了, 不违反那项义务吗. 但是，这与澳博app对司法行政的义务是一致的. 有时, 法律制度的利益和社会公共利益可以优先于委托人的利益, e.g., 规则3.3(a)(3). 我们认为向一个没有澳博app代表的人推荐称职的澳博app, 不能构成规则1意义上的对客户的损害.3(a).

实际考虑

有, 然而, 向澳博app客户的潜在对手推荐澳博app的一些实际考虑. 首先，这个人会相信你的推荐吗? 第二个, 虽然我们对抗制度的基本原则可能允许这样的建议, 有些客户可能不明白为什么他们的澳博app要帮助对手聘请澳博app来起诉他们. 因此，出于客户关系的考虑，澳博app可能不愿意提出这样的建议. 此外, a prudent lawyer who elects to make a recommendation might be wiser to suggest more than one name to avoid recriminations from the inquirer, 推荐的澳博app是否令人不满意, 或者来自她的客户, 推荐的澳博app会不会无理取闹.⁴

关于另外两条规则的实际考虑值得讨论. 在与潜在客户的讨论中，总是存在这样的可能性, 澳博app可能会了解当事人不想透露的秘密.⁵

If the lawyer does learn of these confidences or secrets and then realizes that the potential client is adverse to 现有客户端, 她面临着两难境地:根据规则1.4, 澳博app与客户沟通的义务是什么, 她可能有义务通知她现有的客户有人打算起诉它. 在某些情况下，不通知现有客户可能会造成损害. 假设, 例如, 这位潜在客户试图对她的雇主提出性骚扰索赔, 现有客户端, 因为持续的敌对环境. The client should want to know this as soon as possible so that it could investigate and if necessary remediate the situation. 另一方面, 潜在客户可能不想向澳博app的现有客户透露她正在考虑提起诉讼. 对规则1的注释[7].6, 该法案禁止, 在一般情况下, 泄露机密和秘密, makes it clear that the lawyer’s duty of confidentiality attaches when the lawyer agrees to consider whether to take on a client. “因此, a lawyer may be subject to a duty of confidentiality with respect to information disclosed by a client to enable the lawyer to determine whether representation of the potential client would involve a prohibited conflict of interest . . . .“大概, most lawyers ascertain at the outset the name of the adverse party prior to discussing with a potential client a new matter. 但如果澳博app忽略了这一点，或者如果澳博app, 尤其是在大公司里, 从一开始就不承认对手是一个坚定的客户, 澳博app可能被扣押持有机密或秘密资料.⁶

在这种情况下，规则1规定的具体义务.不要透露那些秘密和秘密胜过更普遍的规则1.有义务让客户了解情况. 不过, a lawyer who must refrain from telling her client information that the client would wish to know - even if the only "secret" was the potential client’s contemplated suit - might hesitate before taking the steps of actually recommending counsel to the inquiring person. Many clients might find it difficult to understand that their lawyer not only failed to tell them they were about to be sued, 但也建议澳博app提起诉讼.

总而言之, 我们认为，这与我们的对手制度的概念是一致的, 而且不受《澳博app》的禁止, 对于澳博app来说, 如果她愿意, 将寻求代理的人介绍给另一位澳博app, 即使该代理对转介澳博app的现有客户不利. 每个澳博app都必须自己决定在特定情况下这样做是否明智.

通过:2004年12月
出版日期:2004年12月

1. 规则1.7一般禁止澳博app接受这样的代理. 这是可能的, 当然, 允许澳博app根据规则1向现有客户(和潜在客户)寻求豁免.如果现有的客户在这件事上有另一位澳博app代理，那么起诉她的客户.
2. 最可能的情况是，潜在的原告找到了澳博app. 被告也可能会接近她, 已经被她的客户起诉，而她的客户在这件事上由另一位澳博app代理. Presumably similar situations might arise in a non-litigation context such as a potential client who wants to retain counsel to represent him in a business transaction with the lawyer’s existing client. 在非诉讼的情况下, 哪里的敌对关系不那么明显, 现有客户不太可能因其澳博app将潜在客户推荐给另一位澳博app而生气.
3. 如果澳博app在已经开始的案件中代表客户, 据推测，未被代理的人不会寻求聘请代表其对手的澳博app.
4. 推荐一名以上的澳博app并不总是可能的. 例如, 如果当事人寻求无偿法律顾问, 提供一份名单可能是不切实际的.
5. 我们假设澳博app在建立澳博app-委托人关系之前发现了冲突. 这种关系是否已经形成，是实体法的问题. 注释[7]规则1.6. 参见ABA正式Op. 第95-390条(引用《澳博app法第三重述》第26条). 草案没有. (1992年5月5日)，以指示何时出现澳博app与客户的关系.
6. 在某些情况下, disclosure of confidential information by a potential client that might be useful to the representation of an existing adverse client, 可能会取消澳博app在对潜在客户不利的案件中代表现有客户的资格. 注释[7]，规则1.10. 看到N.Y. 乙. Op. 643, 1993 wl 57240 (n ..Y. St. 酒吧协会. 通讯. 教授. 乙.) (a confidence revealed in an intake interview of prospective client relevant to representation of existing client requires withdrawal from existing representation and separate lawyers for each client.) Fl. 乙. Op. 2-1, 1992 WL 602798(佛罗里达州. St. 酒吧协会.)(假设在接受法律援助人员面谈时已取得机密资料). A conflict obtained as a result of learning confidential information in deciding whether to enter into a representation is not imputed to other associated lawyers when no lawyer-client relationship is formed. 规则1.第10(a)条及评论[7].