职业行为准则

规则4.2: Communication Between Lawyer and Person Represented by Counsel

  (a) During the course of representing a client, 澳博app不得就代理事项与已知由另一澳博app代理的人进行沟通或促使他人进行沟通, 除非澳博app事先得到代表该人的澳博app的同意，或法律或法院命令授权澳博app这样做.
   (b) During the course of representing a client, 澳博app可以在未经该组织澳博app同意的情况下与该组织的非党派雇员就代理主题进行沟通. If the organization is an adverse party, 然而, prior to communicating with any such nonparty employee, 澳博app必须向雇员披露澳博app的身份，以及澳博app所代表的一方与雇员的雇主为敌的事实.
   (c)就本条而言, the term “party” or “person” includes any person or organization, including an employee of an organization, who has the authority to bind an organization as to the representation to which the communication relates.
   (d)这条规则并不禁止澳博app与有权纠正澳博app委托人冤屈的政府官员进行通信, 无论这些不满或澳博app的沟通是否与代理的主题有关, 如果发生此类通信，则(b)中规定的披露是向接收该通信的政府官员进行的.

评论

   [1]这条规则适用于任何人, whether or not a party to a formal proceeding, who is represented by counsel concerning the matter in question.

   [2] This rule does not prohibit communication with a person or party, or an employee or agent of an organization, concerning matters outside the representation. 例如, 两个组织之间存在争议并不禁止任何一方的澳博app就单独的事项与另一方的代表进行沟通. 也, 当事各方可以直接相互沟通，有独立理由与另一方沟通的澳博app可以这样做. 除了, a lawyer is not prohibited from advising a client concerning a communication that the client is legally entitled to make, 前提是与客户沟通的目的并非仅仅是为了规避本规则对澳博app施加的限制.
   [3]就组织而言, and other than as noted in 评论 [5], 这条规则禁止澳博app代表一方就代理事项与有权约束该组织的人就所涉特定代理事项进行通信. 如果该组织的代理人或雇员有权就该代表作出有约束力的决定，则由单独的澳博app代表该事项, the consent by that agent’s or employee’s counsel to a communication will be sufficient for purposes of this rule.
   [4]该规则并不禁止澳博app与组织的雇员进行沟通，如果这些雇员无权就代表本身作出有约束力的决定，则他们有权就代表的基础事项约束组织. A lawyer may therefore communicate with such persons without first notifying the organization’s lawyer. 看到 D.C. 酒吧 法律道德 Committee Opinion No. 129. But before communicating with such a “nonparty employee,澳博app必须向雇员披露澳博app的身份，以及澳博app代表向雇主提出索赔的一方的事实. It is preferable that this disclosure be made in writing. The notification requirements of 规则4.2(b)适用于与无权就该代表作出有约束力决定的政府雇员的联系.
   [5]因为这条规则主要是为了保护未受过法律教育的被代理人免受对方澳博app的直接沟通, 当澳博app寻求与组织的内部法律顾问沟通时，不需要该组织澳博app的同意. If individual in-house counsel is represented separately from the organization, 然而, consent of that individual’s personal counsel is required before communicating with that individual in-house counsel.
   [6]当澳博app寻求与某组织的前任成员进行沟通时，不需要该组织澳博app的同意. 在进行这种接触时, 然而, the lawyer may not seek to obtain information that is otherwise protected.
   [7]这条规则也不排除与正在寻求澳博app建议的代理人进行沟通，而澳博app在这件事上并不代表客户.
   [8] This rule applies even though the represented person initiates or consents to the communication. A lawyer must immediately terminate communication with a person if, 开始沟通后, the lawyer learns that the person is one with whom communication is not permitted by this rule.
   [9]本规则不适用于澳博app为获取公众普遍可获得的信息而与某一组织的雇员联系的情况, or obtainable under the Freedom of Information Act, even if the information in question is related to the representation. 例如, 对由澳博app代理的组织提起诉讼的原告的澳博app可以打电话给该组织，要求提供一份关于该代理的澳博app稿, without disclosing the lawyer’s identity, obtaining the consent of the organization’s lawyer, or otherwise acting as paragraphs (a) and (b) of this rule require.
   [10] (d)款承认，当澳博app寻求纠正涉及政府的冤屈时，需要考虑一些特殊因素. 它允许在没有事先征得在这种情况下代表政府的澳博app同意的情况下，与有权纠正这种不满的政府人员(但不允许与任何其他政府人员)进行通信. 然而, 未经代表政府的澳博app事先同意而进行此类通信的澳博app，在与非缔约方雇员通信的情况下，必须进行(b)段所要求的披露.
[11] (d)款不允许澳博app在与政府发生纠纷的过程中，在所有可能出现的问题上绕过代表政府的澳博app. It is intended to provide lawyers access to decision makers in government with respect to genuine grievances, such as to present the view that the government’s basic policy position with respect to a dispute is faulty, or that government personnel are conducting themselves improperly with respect to aspects of the dispute. It is not intended to provide direct access on routine disputes such as ordinary discovery disputes, extensions of time or other scheduling matters, or similar routine aspects of the resolution of disputes.
   [12]本规则无意扩大或限制美国或哥伦比亚特区宪法和法律授权和允许的美国或哥伦比亚特区的执法活动. The “authorized by law” proviso to 规则4.2(a) is intended to permit government conduct that is valid under this law. The proviso is not intended to freeze any particular substantive law, but is meant to accommodate substantive law as it may develop over time.