伦理意见274

政府机构靠谱的滚球平台可以参加由靠谱的滚球平台代表的索赔人出席的公开会议

A government agency has a practice of conducting public meetings for people who have claims under the agency’s program. 这些会议的目的是解释项目, 解释机构政策, 回答问题.

代表一组索赔人的靠谱的滚球平台不能以该会议构成该机构的靠谱的滚球平台根据规则4与被代表的当事人进行未经授权的接触为由阻止该机构进行会议.2(a). This is true regardless of the fact that the agency’s lawyers may attend, 甚至参与到, 会议.

适用的规则

• 规则4.2(a)(靠谱的滚球平台与对方的沟通)

调查

养老金福利担保公司(“PBGC”)是一家由美国政府拥有的公司，根据1974年《靠谱的滚球平台》(“ERISA”)成立。, 29 U.S.C. § 1302. PBGC administers, among other things, a pension plan termination insurance program. 当资金不足的养老金计划终止时, PBGC is generally appointed as a statutory trustee of the plan. 作为受托人, PBGC has powers analogous to those of a trustee under Section 704 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. §704, and PBGC is responsible for paying benefits under the plan in accordance with requirements of Title IV of ERISA. 29 U.S.C. § 1342(d)(3).

在引起这次调查的情况下, PBGC被任命为科罗拉多州计划的受托人，该计划在终止时约有4300名参与者. 根据机构的惯例, PBGC sent a notice to the known plan participants inviting them to attend a meeting convened by PBGC.

The purpose of 会议 was to provide general information about the PBGC insurance system, 描述ERISA保证的一般限制, 回答问题. 在这类会议上, PBGC员工讨论申请索赔的程序, the nature and extent of these types of benefits that are guaranteed by PBGC, and the agency’s policies and procedures for handling claims. 这些会议被认为是向索赔人传播资料和回答索赔人经常向机构提出的问题的有效方法.

在会议开始之前, 300 of the plan beneficiaries retained counsel to assist them in obtaining payment of certain specific claims. PBGC had responsibility for determining in the first instance whether the beneficiary’s claims would be paid.

The attorney representing 300 of the beneficiary/claimants wrote to PBGC and demanded that the agency not hold 会议. 靠谱的滚球平台声称，拟议的会议是企图回避或破坏她代表300名索赔客户的代理，这违反了规则4.2(a). Counsel demanded that PBGC deal directly and exclusively with her with regard to the claims of her clients.

PBGC meetings of this type are conducted by a non-lawyer employee of PBGC. 然而, PBGC的专职靠谱的滚球平台出席会议，目的是向非靠谱的滚球平台提供有关会议进行的建议. 员工靠谱的滚球平台通常不会在会议上发言, 尽管有可能提出的问题超出了主持会议的非靠谱的滚球平台PBGC员工的法律权限, the PBGC staff attorney might give part or all of the response to the question.

初学的, PBGC的专职靠谱的滚球平台, has requested the Committee’s opinion on the application of 规则4.2(a)适用于上述情况. 具体地说, the Inquirer asks whether: (1) PBGC was obliged to cancel 会议 in response to counsel’s demand; (2) PBGC was required to direct its attorneys not to attend 会议; and (3)PBGC should invite or direct counsel’s 300 beneficiary/claimant clients to leave 会议.

初学的 has also requested the Committee’s opinion on the application of 规则4.2(a) to PBGC’s practice of using contractors to perform administerial functions for PBGC. These contractors operate as “field benefit administrators” in locations where PBGC does not have employee representatives. 承包商在PBGC非靠谱的滚球平台员工的监督下工作，并为计划参与者提供大部分一线服务. 例如, 这些服务可能包括收集计划记录, 应用程序, and personal data from claimants and explaining plan provisions and PBGC guarantee limitations. 以这种身份, the contractors receive numerous telephone inquiries and office visits from participants who may, 也可能不会, 由靠谱的滚球平台代表.

讨论

规则4.2(a)规定:

在代理客户的过程中, 靠谱的滚球平台不得沟通, 或者导致另一个人交流, about the subject of the representation with a party known to be represented by a another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the prior consent of the lawyer representing such party or is authorized by law to do so.

It is first worth noting the purpose of the rule at issue here. 规则4.2(一个) designed to prevent a lawyer from communicating directly with opposing counsel’s client. Among its main purposes is the protection of the adversary system. 委托人在没有自己的靠谱的滚球平台参与的情况下收到对方靠谱的滚球平台的信息，可能无法评估对方靠谱的滚球平台所作法律陈述的正确性. 没有靠谱的滚球平台的参与, an unprotected client may be induced by opposing counsel into making admissions, 放弃保密, 或者在客户不知情的情况下采取不利于客户利益的立场因为客户的靠谱的滚球平台并不知情, 不参与, 的通信. 看到 D.C. 酒吧Op. 258(1995)，特别是nn的文本. 5-10. 规则4.2(一个), 就其本身而言, waivable by counsel (and only by counsel) in the sense that, 在适当的情况下, a lawyer can authorize opposing counsel to contact his client without the lawyer’s participation.

There are a number of reasons why the Committee believes that 规则4.2(a) does not prevent PBGC’s conduct at issue in this inquiry. 首先, 会议s that are described by Inquirer are initiated by PBGC itself as part of its functions as trustee, and the attendance of the PBGC’s staff attorney is incidental. 没有迹象表明PBGC的代理靠谱的滚球平台正在利用该机构的非靠谱的滚球平台雇员间接完成规则4所禁止的代理靠谱的滚球平台本身所不能完成的任何事情.2(a)直接完成.

根据定义，该规则不适用于非靠谱的滚球平台，因此推而广之，也不适用于靠谱的滚球平台的客户，除非有某些迹象表明——此处没有出现——靠谱的滚球平台正在利用非靠谱的滚球平台来规避规则. To the extent that PBGC is the client of its in-house lawyers in this situation, the ethics rules for lawyers would not prevent the non-lawyer employees of the agency from conducting meetings of this type.

调查, 从这个角度看, 解决了一个问题，即当一些(但可能不是全部)听众可能由靠谱的滚球平台代表时，主持这些会议的PBGC非靠谱的滚球平台雇员是否可以由该机构的靠谱的滚球平台陪同参加会议. 我们认为，在这种情况下，没有正当理由剥夺PBGC的非靠谱的滚球平台雇员获得该机构靠谱的滚球平台建议的权利.

最后, when the lawyer representing the claimants is aware in advance of 会议—which she undoubtedly was in this case—the lawyer representing the claimants has a number of choices: she can consent to her clients’ attendance at 会议; she can attend 会议 with her clients; or she can counsel her clients not to attend. 原告的靠谱的滚球平台, 然而, 试图改变预防规则, which prevents unconsented contact with her clients by opposing counsel, into an offensive weapon by which the lawyer can prevent PBGC from conducting its public meeting.

PBGC does not discuss the facts and circumstances of individual claimants at such meetings. 而, 按照我们的理解, 这些会议的目的是提供有关该机构计划大纲和该机构保证的福利类型的一般信息，并回答有关这些方面的一般问题. 靠谱的滚球平台的道德规范不应干涉非靠谱的滚球平台雇员和政府机构的专职靠谱的滚球平台在没有明确理由的情况下向感兴趣的公众传播这类有用信息的权利.

可以想象，在机构工作人员靠谱的滚球平台知道提问者由靠谱的滚球平台代理的特殊情况下，发言提出的问题对提问者来说是特别特殊的, 这种谨慎将要求把对这类问题的答复推迟到索赔裁决程序的正常过程中进行.

然而, so long as the focus of 会议 remains on the provision of general information to the interested public, 规则4中没有.2(a) impinges on the conduct of non-lawyer employees of the agency, 该机构的靠谱的滚球平台雇员可以参与这一过程，除非他们知道他们正在被卷入一个由靠谱的滚球平台代表潜在索赔人的个人主题的讨论中.

As to the second branch of the inquiry concerning the field benefit administrators, 这些承包商是, 通过定义, 不是靠谱的滚球平台, 因此规则4中没有任何内容.(a)妨碍其行为的. 只有在代理靠谱的滚球平台试图通过外地福利管理人的中介与被代理的客户沟通，目的是绕过索赔人的靠谱的滚球平台的情况下，才适用规则4.2(a)生效. 然而, 根据向我方提出的调查事实, 没有迹象表明这里存在这种行为.

调查没有. 94-8-33
通过:1997年9月17日