concluding there was no violation of DR 7-110(B), because the communication was not “on the merits”
How later courts described this case
- concluding there was no violation of DR 7-110(B), because the communication was not “on the merits”
- rule violated when lawyer mailed notice to produce directly to adverse party whom lawyer knew to be represented by counsel
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNIS, J.,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I join in the court’s opinion in all respects, except the finding that the accused violated DR 7-104(A)(l). To find a violation of DR 7-104(A)(l), the court must find by clear and convincing evidence that the accused (1) communicated or caused to communicate (2) with a person represented by counsel (3) whom the accused knows to be represented by counsel (4) on the subject of the representation or directly related subjects. In my view, the Bar has failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that the accused violated DR 7-104(A)(l).