伦理意见270

Whether Subordinate Lawyer Must Alert Client and Report Superior’s Misconduct After Lawyer Has Left Practice

当下属澳博app得知雇佣澳博app向客户发送了代表客户写的信件副本时，该副本是什么, 但信在哪里, 事实上, 从来没有发送, 下级澳博app有责任确保委托人知晓欺骗行为，并向纪律当局举报雇用澳博app. These duties continue after the subordinate lawyer resigns upon learning of the deception.

适用的规则

• 规则1.4(沟通)
• 规则1.16(拒绝或终止代表)
• 规则5.2(下属澳博app职责)
• 规则8.3(举报专业失当行为)
• 规则8.4(行为)

调查

调查报, 一个澳博app, was hired through a temporary employment agency to work for a sole practitioner on a particular matter. 在询问者工作的头几天里, 雇佣澳博app告诉她，他的当事人最近坚持要他给第三方写一封措辞激烈的信, despite the lawyer’s advice that sending such a letter was imprudent. The employing lawyer further advised inquirer that when the client made such demands in the past, his practice was to draft a letter that would satisfy the client’s wishes but not send it to the addressee. 而不是, 雇佣澳博app给委托人寄了一份信件的副本，使委托人觉得信件已经寄给收件人了. 雇佣澳博app没有解释这些事件是什么时候发生的，也没有要求询问者起草一封虚构的信.

调查报 informed the employing lawyer that she felt uncomfortable about this practice, and at the end of the first week of her placement withdrew from the matter and resigned the temporary position. 几周后，询问者通知雇用澳博app，她认为他严重违反了《澳博app》, 并要求告知客户欺诈行为. 作为这些谈话的结果, 雇佣澳博app告知委托人先前信件的虚假，并退出了委托人的代理.

询问者提出了两个问题:1)离开公司后, does inquirer have a duty to assure that the client is informed of the employing lawyer’s misrepresentations? 2) Upon leaving, does inquirer have a duty to report the violation to disciplinary authorities? 我们认为，这两个问题的答案都是肯定的.

讨论

The conduct of the employing lawyer destroyed the heart of the lawyer-client relationship. 客户必须能够信任澳博app，并确信澳博app正在与客户分享相关信息并坦率、诚实地进行交易. 在澳博app自己的行为上欺骗委托人破坏了澳博app-委托人关系的这一基本方面.

根据规则8，不诚实和欺骗是职业上的不当行为.4(c). 规则1.4, moreover, enshrines 一个澳博app’s duty of honest communication with the client.¹ It demands that the lawyer keep the client “reasonably informed of the status of a matter.在这种情况下, 未能及时告知委托人的形式是故意误导委托人关于澳博app在案件中的行为.

澳博app有时会遇到一些吵闹的客户，或者要求澳博app采取与澳博app最佳判断不一致的行动. There are accepted ways of responding to the difficulties such clients present, but affirmatively leading the client to believe the lawyer has taken an action he has not 事实上 taken is not among them. The harms that could befall a client who has received a fictitious letter from 一个澳博app are easily imagined. 但即使没有具体的伤害发生, 向客户发送虚假信件损害了专业关系，需要对澳博app的行为进行谴责.

1. 向客户披露

询问者是否仍然受雇于那个惹是生非的澳博app，并在仅仅一个星期之后继续代理客户, 她将有义务确保委托人的代理符合《澳博app》, 包括第1条规定的公开诚实沟通的义务.4.² The requirement of truthfulness in the representation that is part of the 规则1.4 .义务要求她采取行动，确保不再发送虚假信件，并告知客户过去发送的虚假信件.

调查报, 然而, 不再代表客户, 我们必须确定告知的责任, 如果有任何, 她退出时欠了委托人的钱. 通常, withdrawal from representation terminates the relationship with the client, 只留下有限的剩余义务, such as to protect client confidences and to avoid certain conflicts. 看到 规则1.6(f)和1.9. 通信义务不在这些剩余义务之列. 调查者做了, 然而, have the duty upon withdrawal to “take timely steps to the extent practicable to protect a client’s interests, . . .规则1.16(d). 在本案的特殊情况下, we believe that one of those timely and practicable steps is to assure that the client is informed of the deceptions. 由于询问者陈述的简短，在询问者参与陈述的过程中，几乎没有时间履行通知客户虚假陈述的义务. 补救不当行为和防止对客户不利的唯一方法是迅速采取行动，确保客户意识到欺诈行为.

我们承认规则1.16(d) seems intended to address the common situation where 一个澳博app or entire firm terminates representing a client, not the instance where a single lawyer among two or more on a matter withdraws. 不过, 该规则的措辞和我们所理解的基本目的——确保客户不会因澳博app的离开而处于不利地位——在这两种情况下都同样适用. Comment [10] of the Rule states that even when 一个澳博app is unfairly discharged by a client, the lawyer still must take “all reasonable steps to mitigate the consequences.“肯定, 然后, 一个澳博app who leaves on account of another lawyer’s misconduct has a similar duty to mitigate. Mitigation here means assuring that the client learn the truth about the fictitious letters.

但是，询问者应根据规则1履行其义务.16(d) in a manner least disruptive to the existing lawyer-client relationship. 在这里, 询问者采取适当的行动，与雇用澳博app接触，并确保他承诺向客户披露其行为. 如果雇用澳博app拒绝通知委托人或使询问者对他是否会这样做产生实质性怀疑, 询问者有责任直接通知客户.

2. 向纪律当局报告的义务

下一个问题是询问者是否有任何额外的义务向大澳博app报告雇用澳博app的不当行为. 规则8.第3条要求报告违反“职业行为规则”的行为，这些行为对澳博app的诚实提出了实质性的质疑, 值得信赖或适合做澳博app . . .意见书246, we adopted the four-part test adopted by other jurisdictions for determining whether this standard is met: (l) whether the reporting lawyer has knowledge of the violation; (2) whether reporting can be accomplished without disclosure of client confidences or secrets; (3) whether the violation involves a disciplinary rule; and (4) whether the violation raises a substantial question as to honesty, 可信赖或适合从事法律工作.

在这种情况下，所有四个元素都满足. 第一个要素——澳博app是否“实际了解”违法行为——取决于两个因素:“清楚地相信”不当行为发生了，以及“实际了解相关事实”.意见246. There is no question here that inquirer clearly believed misconduct occurred. 询问者因为对雇佣澳博app的行为感到不舒服而在一周后离开了临时工作岗位，这一事实证实了她认为雇佣澳博app实际上从事了严重的不法行为.

我们还得出结论，通过雇佣澳博app直接向她作出的承认，询问者对违规行为“实际知情”. 有人可能会争辩说，调查者没有“实际知识”，因为她亲眼目睹了她将要报道的雇佣澳博app的行为. She did not see the letters or know when and to whom the letters were written, or what they said. But we do not interpret the requirement of “actual knowledge” in 规则8.3 to require direct observation of the underlying facts that constitute a violation. 规则8的目的之一.3 is to require that lawyers report misconduct when the victim is not in a position to discover it. 规则8.3 does not require that 一个澳博app report every hunch about wrongdoing. But neither should it require 一个澳博app to conduct an independent investigation. 雇佣澳博app坦率而明确地承认，他曾向该客户发送了多封与此诉讼有关的虚构信件，这就足够了.

测试的其余要素很容易满足. It is clear that the subordinate lawyer could report the violation without disclosing client confidences or secrets. The only “secret” here was that the employing lawyer was deceiving the client. 第三和第四次测试, involving the violation of a disciplinary rule that affects the lawyer’s honesty, 诚信, 或者适合练习, 也都很清楚. The employing lawyer’s agreement to notify the client of the fictitious letters does not alter this conclusion, since the violation involved the very serious offense of deliberately lying to the client. 调查报 therefore must report the employing lawyer to 酒吧 Counsel.

结论

意见书246, we recognized that the judgment whether another lawyer’s conduct raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, 诚信或健康是一项“庄严而不令人羡慕的任务”.“在这里, inquirer’s knowledge of serious misconduct not only required that such a judgment be made, 但对她征收了额外的关税.

调查没有. 96-3-9
通过:1997年3月19日

1. A lawyer’s duty not to make false statements of material fact extends as well to third parties. 见规则4.1.
2. 规则5.2 binds a subordinate lawyer to comply with the 规则 even when under the direction of another lawyer.