Wednesday, August 22, 2012

A Classic Rule 4.2 Violation

It's the time of the year when law professors are looking for new cases to use as teaching examples. If you teach professional responsibility and want a good illustrative Rule 4.2 case , check out a decision issued today by the Minnesota Supreme Court.

The attorney represented a defendant in a homicide case. He instructed his investigator to interview a co-defendant of his client who had entered a guilty plea and was cooperating with the prosecution.

Unfortunately, the co-defendant was represented by counsel in the matter. The attorney failed to seek or obtain permission from counsel to speak with the co-defendant. The investigator took a written statement.

The court rejected the attorney's contention that the co-defendant was not represented by counsel in the matter at issue and the alternative contention that such interviews are "authorized by law."

The attorney had prior discipline. A 60-day suspension was imposed. (Mike Frisch)

Bar Discipline & Process | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference A Classic Rule 4.2 Violation:


Post a comment