RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT FOR

SCR CHAPTER 20

RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT FOR

ATTORNEYS

INDEX (continued)

COUNSELOR

2.1 Advisor

2.2 Omitted

2.3 Evaluation for use by 3rd persons

2.4 Lawyer serving as 3rd-party neutral

ADVOCATE

3.1 Meritorious claims and contentions

3.2 Expediting litigation

3.3 Candor toward the tribunal

3.4 Fairness to opposing party and counsel

3.5 Impartiality and decorum of the tribunal

3.6 Trial publicity

3.7 Lawyer as witness

3.8 Special responsibilities of a prosecutor

3.9 Advocate in nonadjudicative proceedings

3.10 Omitted

TRANSACTIONS WITH PERSONS OTHER THAN CLIENTS

4.1 Truthfulness in statements to others

4.2 Communication with person represented by counsel

4.3 Dealing with unrepresented person

4.4 Respect for rights of 3rd persons

4.5 Guardians ad litem

LAW FIRMS AND ASSOCIATIONS

5.1 Responsibilities of partners, managers, and supervisory lawyers

5.2 Responsibilities of a subordinate lawyer

5.3 Responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistants

5.4 Professional independence of a lawyer

5.5 Unauthorized practice of law

5.6 Restrictions on right to practice

5.7 Limited liability legal practice

5.8 Responsibilities Regarding Law-Related Services

PUBLIC SERVICE

6.1 Voluntary pro bono publico service

6.2 Accepting appointments

149

6.3 Membership in legal services organizations

6.4 Law reform activities affecting client interests

6.5 Nonprofit and court-annexed limited legal services programs

INFORMATION ABOUT LEGAL SERVICES

7.1 Communications concerning a lawyer's services

7.2 Advertising

7.3 Direct contact with prospective clients

7.4 Communication of fields of practice

7.5 Firm names and letterheads

7.6 Political contributions to obtain government legal engagements or appointments

by judges

MAINTAINING THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROFESSION

8.1 Bar admission and disciplinary matters

8.2 Judicial and legal officials

8.3 Reporting professional misconduct

8.4 Misconduct

8.5 Disciplinary authority; choice of law

COUNSELOR

SCR 20:2.1 Advisor

In representing a client, a lawyer shall exercise independent

professional judgment and render candid advice. In rendering advice, a

lawyer may refer not only to law but to other considerations such as

moral, economic, social, and political factors that may be relevant to the

client's situation.

ABA COMMENT

Scope of Advice

[1] A client is entitled to straightforward advice expressing the lawyer's honest assessment.

Legal advice often involves unpleasant facts and alternatives that a client may be disinclined to

confront. In presenting advice, a lawyer endeavors to sustain the client's morale and may put advice in

as acceptable a form as honesty permits. However, a lawyer should not be deterred from giving candid

advice by the prospect that the advice will be unpalatable to the client.

Advice couched in narrow legal terms may be of little value to a client, especially where

practical considerations, such as cost or effects on other people, are predominant. Purely technical legal

advice, therefore, can sometimes be inadequate. It is proper for a lawyer to refer to relevant moral and

ethical considerations in giving advice. Although a lawyer is not a moral advisor as such, moral and

ethical considerations impinge upon most legal questions and may decisively influence how the law

will be applied.

[2] A client may expressly or impliedly ask the lawyer for purely technical advice. When

such a request is made by a client experienced in legal matters, the lawyer may accept it at face value.

150

When such a request is made by a client inexperienced in legal matters, however, the lawyer's

responsibility as advisor may include indicating that more may be involved than strictly legal

considerations.

[3] Matters that go beyond strictly legal questions may also be in the domain of another

profession. Family matters can involve problems within the professional competence of psychiatry,

clinical psychology or social work; business matters can involve problems within the competence of

the accounting profession or of financial specialists. Where consultation with a professional in another

field is itself something a competent lawyer would recommend, the lawyer should make such a

recommendation. At the same time, a lawyer's advice at its best often consists of recommending a

course of action in the face of conflicting recommendations of experts.

Offering Advice

[4] In general, a lawyer is not expected to give advice until asked by the client. However,

when a lawyer knows that a client proposes a course of action that is likely to result in substantial

adverse legal consequences to the client, the lawyer's duty to the client under Rule 1.4 may require that

the lawyer offer advice if the client's course of action is related to the representation. Similarly, when

a matter is likely to involve litigation, it may be necessary under Rule 1.4 to inform the client of forms

of dispute resolution that might constitute reasonable alternatives to litigation. A lawyer ordinarily has

no duty to initiate investigation of a client's affairs or to give advice that the client has indicated is

unwanted, but a lawyer may initiate advice to a client when doing so appears to be in the client's

interest.

SCR 20:2.2 Omitted.

SCR 20:2.3 Evaluation for use by 3rd persons

(a) A lawyer may provide an evaluation of a matter affecting a

client for the use of someone other than the client if the lawyer reasonably

believes that making the evaluation is compatible with other aspects of

the lawyer's relationship with the client.

(b) When the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the

evaluation is likely to affect the client's interests materially and adversely,

the lawyer shall not provide the evaluation unless the client gives

informed consent.

(c) Except as disclosure is authorized in connection with a report

of an evaluation, information relating to the evaluation is otherwise

protected by SCR 20:1.6.

ABA COMMENT

Definition

[1] An evaluation may be performed at the client's direction or when impliedly authorized in

order to carry out the representation. See Rule 1.2. Such an evaluation may be for the primary purpose

of establishing information for the benefit of third parties; for example, an opinion concerning the title

of property rendered at the behest of a vendor for the information of a prospective purchaser, or at the

behest of a borrower for the information of a prospective lender. In some situations, the evaluation

may be required by a government agency; for example, an opinion concerning the legality of the

151

securities registered for sale under the securities laws. In other instances, the evaluation may be

required by a third person, such as a purchaser of a business.

[2] A legal evaluation should be distinguished from an investigation of a person with whom

the lawyer does not have a client-lawyer relationship. For example, a lawyer retained by a purchaser

to analyze a vendor's title to property does not have a client-lawyer relationship with the vendor. So

also, an investigation into a person's affairs by a government lawyer, or by special counsel by a

government lawyer, or by special counsel employed by the government, is not an evaluation as that

term is used in this Rule. The question is whether the lawyer is retained by the person whose affairs

are being examined. When the lawyer is retained by that person, the general rules concerning loyalty

to client and preservation of confidences apply, which is not the case if the lawyer is retained by

someone else. For this reason, it is essential to identify the person by whom the lawyer is retained.

This should be made clear not only to the person under examination, but also to others to whom the

results are to be made available.

Duties Owed to Third Person and Client

[3] When the evaluation is intended for the information or use of a third person, a legal duty

to that person may or may not arise. That legal question is beyond the scope of this Rule. However,

since such an evaluation involves a departure from the normal client-lawyer relationship, careful

analysis of the situation is required. The lawyer must be satisfied as a matter of professional judgment

that making the evaluation is compatible with other functions undertaken in behalf of the client. For

example, if the lawyer is acting as advocate in defending the client against charges of fraud, it would

normally be incompatible with that responsibility for the lawyer to perform an evaluation for others

concerning the same or a related transaction. Assuming no such impediment is apparent, however, the

lawyer should advise the client of the implications of the evaluation, particularly the lawyer's

responsibilities to third persons and the duty to disseminate the findings.

Access to and Disclosure of Information

[4] The quality of an evaluation depends on the freedom and extent of the investigation upon

which it is based. Ordinarily a lawyer should have whatever latitude of investigation seems necessary

as a matter of professional judgment. Under some circumstances, however, the terms of the evaluation

may be limited. For example, certain issues or sources may be categorically excluded, or the scope of

search may be limited by time constraints or the noncooperation of persons having relevant

information. Any such limitations that are material to the evaluation should be described in the report.

If after a lawyer has commenced an evaluation, the client refuses to comply with the terms upon which

it was understood the evaluation was to have been made, the lawyer's obligations are determined by

law, having reference to the terms of the client's agreement and the surrounding circumstances. In no

circumstances is the lawyer permitted to knowingly make a false statement of material fact or law in

providing an evaluation under this Rule. See Rule 4.1.

Obtaining Client's Informed Consent

[5] Information relating to an evaluation is protected by Rule 1.6. In many situations,

providing an evaluation to a third party poses no significant risk to the client; thus, the lawyer may be

impliedly authorized to disclose information to carry out the representation. See Rule 1.6(a). Where,

however, it is reasonably likely that providing the evaluation will affect the client's interests materially

and adversely, the lawyer must first obtain the client's consent after the client has been adequately

informed concerning the important possible effects on the client's interests. See Rules 1.6(a) and 1.0(e).

Financial Auditors' Requests for Information

[6] When a question concerning the legal situation of a client arises at the instance of the

client's financial auditor and the question is referred to the lawyer, the lawyer's response may be made

in accordance with procedures recognized in the legal profession. Such a procedure is set forth in the

American Bar Association Statement of Policy Regarding Lawyers' Responses to Auditors' Requests

152

for Information, adopted in 1975.

SCR 20:2.4 Lawyer serving as 3rd-party neutral

(a) A lawyer serves as a 3rd-party neutral when the lawyer assists

two or more persons who are not clients of the lawyer to reach a

resolution of a dispute or other matter that has arisen between them.

Service as a 3rd-party neutral may include service as an arbitrator, a

mediator or in such other capacity as will enable the lawyer to assist the

parties to resolve the matter.

(b) A lawyer serving as a 3rd-party neutral shall inform

unrepresented parties that the lawyer is not representing them. When the

lawyer knows or reasonably should know that a party does not understand

the lawyer's role in the matter, the lawyer shall explain the difference

between the lawyer's role as a 3rd-party neutral and a lawyer's role as one

who represents a client.

(c)(1) A lawyer serving as mediator in a case arising under ch.

767, stats., in which the parties have resolved one or more issues being

mediated may draft, select, complete, modify, or file documents

confirming, memorializing, or implementing such resolution, as long

as the lawyer maintains his or her neutrality throughout the process and

both parties give their informed consent, confirmed in a writing signed

by the parties to the mediation. For purposes of this subsection,

informed consent requires, at a minimum, the lawyer to disclose to each

party any interest or relationship that is likely to affect the lawyer's

impartiality in the case or to create an appearance of partiality or bias

and that the lawyer explain all of the following to each of the parties:

a. The limits of the lawyer's role.

b. That the lawyer does not represent either party to the

mediation.

c. That the lawyer cannot give legal advice or advocate on behalf

of either party to the mediation.

d. The desirability of seeking independent legal advice before

executing any documents prepared by the lawyer-mediator.

(2) The drafting, selection, completion, modification, and filing

of documents pursuant to par. (1) does not create a client-lawyer

relationship between the lawyer and a party.

(3) Notwithstanding par. (2), in drafting, selecting, completing

or modifying the documents referred to in par. (1), a lawyer serving as

mediator shall exercise the same degree of competence and shall act

153

with the same degree of diligence as SCRs 20:1.1 and 20:1.3 would

require if the lawyer were representing the parties to the mediation.

(4) A lawyer serving as mediator who has prepared documents

pursuant to par. (1) may, with the informed consent of all parties to the

mediation, file such documents with the court. However, a lawyer who

has served as a mediator may not appear in court on behalf of either or

both of the parties in mediation.

(5) Any document prepared pursuant to this subsection that is

filed with the court shall clearly indicate on the document that it was

"prepared with the assistance of a lawyer acting as mediator."

WISCONSIN COMMENT

Mediation is a process designed to resolve disputes between two or more parties

through agreement facilitated by a neutral person. Although many lawyers

routinely act as mediators, there has been some concern about the applicability of

the SCRs to lawyers acting as mediators. However, the selection, drafting,

completion, modification, or filing of legal documents or agreements to

memorialize or implement a mediated settlement does constitute the practice of

law and is regulated by SCR Chapter 23. See SCR 23.01. The purpose of

subsection (c) is to clarify that a lawyer serving as mediator in a Chapter 767

proceeding may, while acting in that capacity, memorialize the outcome of the

mediation, if it can be done without compromising his or her neutrality and that,

by doing so, the lawyer does not assume a client-lawyer relationship with either

party. The lawyer serving as mediator may not at any stage of the process attempt

to advance the interests of one party at the expense of any other party.

Although a lawyer acting as mediator should strive to anticipate the

issues and resolve them prior to documenting the outcome of the mediation, the

process of documenting itself may illuminate or create previously unforeseen

issues. For this reason, the mediator should make it clear to the parties that the

process of documentation is part of the mediation and the mediator must maintain

neutrality throughout that process.

Likewise, even after documents confirming, memorializing, or

implementing the resolution of issues have been finalized, other previouslyunidentified or unresolved issues may arise. The mediator may, as an extension

of the original mediation, continue in a neutral capacity to assist the parties in

resolving and memorializing those issues. While this rule does not require the

mediator to resolve or memorialize all issues, the prudent mediator may want to

consider identifying any issues the parties have intentionally left unresolved.

Documents drafted, selected, completed or modified by a mediator can

have consequences an unrepresented party might not perceive. Although an

attorney acting as neutral mediator may attempt to explain those consequences to

the parties in mediation, he or she does not stand in a client-lawyer relationship

with either party and may not give legal advice to either or both parties while

acting in that neutral capacity. Moreover, because the line between discussing

consequences and dispensing advice is not always clear, a lawyer acting as

mediator who chooses to explain those consequences should take care to avoid

offering or appearing to offer legal advice. For these reasons, and to emphasize to

the parties that the lawyer acting as mediator does not represent the parties,

subsection (c)(1)(d) requires an attorney who has mediated a dispute between

154

unrepresented parties to recommend that each seek independent legal advice

before executing the documents that attorney has drafted, selected, completed, or

modified.

Notwithstanding that no client-lawyer relationship is created when a

lawyer-mediator drafts documents pursuant to this rule, subsection (c)(3) imposes

duties of competence and diligence in connection with the drafting of such

documents. A lawyer who fails to fulfill such duties violates SCR 20:2.4(c)(4).

Filing documents prepared pursuant to this subsection in court can often

be accomplished most efficiently by a lawyer familiar with the documents and, as

long as done with the consent of the parties to the mediation, may be accomplished

by the mediator without impairing his or her neutrality. However, any appearance

by a lawyer in court on behalf of one or more parties is so closely associated with

advocacy that it could compromise the appearance of neutrality and/or provide an

occasion to depart from it. For this reason, although a lawyer who has served as

a mediator may file documents with the court, such a lawyer may not appear in

court on behalf of one or both parties. A lawyer who has served as a third party

neutral, such as a mediator in a matter, may not thereafter represent any party at

any stage of the matter. See SCR 20:1.12.

Because the lawyer-mediator does not have a client-lawyer relationship

with any of the parties, SCR 20:1.2(cm) does not apply. Subsection (5) makes it

clear that the lawyer-mediator must make an equivalent disclosure. Filing of

documents by a lawyer-mediator pursuant to this rule does not constitute an

appearance in the matter.

ABA COMMENT

[1] Alternative dispute resolution has become a substantial part of the civil justice system.

Aside from representing clients in dispute-resolution processes, lawyers often serve as third-party

neutrals. A third-party neutral is a person, such as a mediator, arbitrator, conciliator or evaluator, who

assists the parties, represented or unrepresented, in the resolution of a dispute or in the arrangement of

a transaction. Whether a third-party neutral serves primarily as a facilitator, evaluator or decision

maker depends on the particular process that is either selected by the parties or mandated by a court.

[2] The role of a third-party neutral is not unique to lawyers, although, in some courtconnected contexts, only lawyers are allowed to serve in this role or to handle certain types of cases.

In performing this role, the lawyer may be subject to court rules or other law that apply either to thirdparty neutrals generally or to lawyers serving as third-party neutrals. Lawyer-neutrals may also be

subject to various codes of ethics, such as the Code of Ethics for Arbitration in Commercial Disputes

prepared by a joint committee of the American Bar Association and the American Arbitration

Association or the Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators jointly prepared by the American Bar

Association, the American Arbitration Association and the Society of Professionals in Dispute

Resolution.

[3] Unlike nonlawyers who serve as third-party neutrals, lawyers serving in this role may

experience unique problems as a result of differences between the role of a third-party neutral and a

lawyer's service as a client representative. The potential for confusion is significant when the parties

are unrepresented in the process. Thus, paragraph (b) requires a lawyer-neutral to inform unrepresented

parties that the lawyer is not representing them. For some parties, particularly parties who frequently

use dispute-resolution processes, this information will be sufficient. For others, particularly those who

are using the process for the first time, more information will be required. Where appropriate, the

lawyer should inform unrepresented parties of the important differences between the lawyer's role as

third-party neutral and a lawyer's role as a client representative, including the inapplicability of the

attorney-client evidentiary privilege. The extent of disclosure required under this paragraph will

depend on the particular parties involved and the subject matter of the proceeding, as well as the

155

particular features of the dispute-resolution process selected.

[4] A lawyer who serves as a third-party neutral subsequently may be asked to serve as a

lawyer representing a client in the same matter. The conflicts of interest that arise for both the

individual lawyer and the lawyer's law firm are addressed in Rule 1.12.

[5] Lawyers who represent clients in alternative dispute-resolution processes are governed by

the Rules of Professional Conduct. When the dispute-resolution process takes place before a tribunal,

as in binding arbitration (see Rule 1.0(m)), the lawyer's duty of candor is governed by Rule 3.3.

Otherwise, the lawyer's duty of candor toward both the third-party neutral and other parties is governed

by Rule 4.1.

ADVOCATE

SCR 20:3.1 Meritorious claims and contentions

(a) In representing a client, a lawyer shall not:

(1) knowingly advance a claim or defense that is unwarranted

under existing law, except that the lawyer may advance such claim or

defense if it can be supported by good faith argument for an extension,

modification or reversal of existing law;

(am) A lawyer providing limited scope representation pursuant to

SCR 20:1.2(c) may rely on the otherwise self-represented person’s

representation of facts, unless the lawyer has reason to believe that such

representations are false, or materially insufficient, in which instance the

lawyer shall make an independent reasonable inquiry into the facts.

(2) knowingly advance a factual position unless there is a basis for

doing so that is not frivolous; or

(3) file a suit, assert a position, conduct a defense, delay a trial or

take other action on behalf of the client when the lawyer knows or when

it is obvious that such an action would serve merely to harass or

maliciously injure another.

(b) A lawyer for the defendant in a criminal proceeding, or the

respondent in a proceeding that could result in deprivation of liberty, may

nevertheless so defend the proceeding as to require that every element of

the case be established.

WISCONSIN COMMITTEE COMMENT

This Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule differs from the Model Rule in expressly establishing a

subjective test for an ethical violation.

ABA COMMENT

[1] The advocate has a duty to use legal procedure for the fullest benefit of the client's cause,

but also a duty not to abuse legal procedure. The law, both procedural and substantive, establishes the

limits within which an advocate may proceed. However, the law is not always clear and never is static.

156

Accordingly, in determining the proper scope of advocacy, account must be taken of the law's

ambiguities and potential for change.

[2] The filing of an action or defense or similar action taken for a client is not frivolous merely

because the facts have not first been fully substantiated or because the lawyer expects to develop vital

evidence only by discovery. What is required of lawyers, however, is that they inform themselves

about the facts of their clients' cases and the applicable law and determine that they can make good

faith arguments in support of their clients' positions. Such action is not frivolous even though the

lawyer believes that the client's position ultimately will not prevail. The action is frivolous, however,

if the lawyer is unable either to make a good faith argument on the merits of the action taken or to

support the action taken by a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing

law.

[3] The lawyer's obligations under this Rule are subordinate to federal or state constitutional

law that entitles a defendant in a criminal matter to the assistance of counsel in presenting a claim or

contention that otherwise would be prohibited by this Rule.

SCR 20:3.2 Expediting litigation

A lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to expedite litigation

consistent with the interests of the client.

ABA COMMENT

[1] Dilatory practices bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Although there will be

occasions when a lawyer may properly seek a postponement for personal reasons, it is not proper for

a lawyer to routinely fail to expedite litigation solely for the convenience of the advocates. Nor will a

failure to expedite be reasonable if done for the purpose of frustrating an opposing party's attempt to

obtain rightful redress or repose. It is not a justification that similar conduct is often tolerated by the

bench and bar. The question is whether a competent lawyer acting in good faith would regard the

course of action as having some substantial purpose other than delay. Realizing financial or other

benefit from otherwise improper delay in litigation is not a legitimate interest of the client.

SCR 20:3.3 Candor toward the tribunal

(a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:

(1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to

correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the

tribunal by the lawyer;

(2) fail to disclose to the tribunal legal authority in the controlling

jurisdiction known to the lawyer to be directly adverse to the position of

the client and not disclosed by opposing counsel; or

(3) offer evidence that the lawyer knows to be false. If a lawyer,

the lawyer's client, or a witness called by the lawyer, has offered material

evidence and the lawyer comes to know of its falsity, the lawyer shall

take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to

the tribunal. A lawyer may refuse to offer evidence, other than the

testimony of a defendant in a criminal matter that the lawyer reasonably

believes is false.

157

(b) A lawyer who represents a client in an adjudicative proceeding

and who knows that a person intends to engage, is engaging, or has

engaged in criminal or fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding shall

take reasonable remedial measures, including, if necessary, disclosure to

the tribunal.

(c) The duties stated in pars. (a) and (b) apply even if compliance

requires disclosure of information otherwise protected by SCR 20:1.6.

(d) In an ex parte proceeding, a lawyer shall inform the tribunal of

all material facts known to the lawyer that will enable the tribunal to make

an informed decision, whether or not the facts are adverse.

WISCONSIN COMMITTEE COMMENT

Unlike its Model Rule counterpart, paragraph (c) does not specify when the duties expire. For

this reason, ABA Comment [13] is inapplicable.

ABA COMMENT

[1] This Rule governs the conduct of a lawyer who is representing a client in the proceedings

of a tribunal. See Rule 1.0(m) for the definition of "tribunal." It also applies when the lawyer is

representing a client in an ancillary proceeding conducted pursuant to the tribunal's adjudicative

authority, such as a deposition. Thus, for example, paragraph (a)(3) requires a lawyer to take

reasonable remedial measures if the lawyer comes to know that a client who is testifying in a deposition

has offered evidence that is false.

[2] This Rule sets forth the special duties of lawyers as officers of the court to avoid conduct

that undermines the integrity of the adjudicative process. A lawyer acting as an advocate in an

adjudicative proceeding has an obligation to present the client's case with persuasive force.

Performance of that duty while maintaining confidences of the client, however, is qualified by the

advocate's duty of candor to the tribunal. Consequently, although a lawyer in an adversary proceeding

is not required to present an impartial exposition of the law or to vouch for the evidence submitted in

a cause, the lawyer must not allow the tribunal to be misled by false statements of law or fact or

evidence that the lawyer knows to be false.

Representations by a Lawyer

[3] An advocate is responsible for pleadings and other documents prepared for litigation, but

is usually not required to have personal knowledge of matters asserted therein, for litigation documents

ordinarily present assertions by the client, or by someone on the client's behalf, and not assertions by

the lawyer. Compare Rule 3.1. However, an assertion purporting to be on the lawyer's own knowledge,

as in an affidavit by the lawyer or in a statement in open court, may properly be made only when the

lawyer knows the assertion is true or believes it to be true on the basis of a reasonably diligent inquiry.

There are circumstances where failure to make a disclosure is the equivalent of an affirmative

misrepresentation. The obligation prescribed in Rule 1.2(d) not to counsel a client to commit or assist

the client in committing a fraud applies in litigation. Regarding compliance with Rule 1.2(d), see the

Comment to that Rule. See also the Comment to Rule 8.4(b).

Legal Argument

[4] Legal argument based on a knowingly false representation of law constitutes dishonesty

toward the tribunal. A lawyer is not required to make a disinterested exposition of the law, but must

recognize the existence of pertinent legal authorities. Furthermore, as stated in paragraph (a)(2), an

158

advocate has a duty to disclose directly adverse authority in the controlling jurisdiction that has not

been disclosed by the opposing party. The underlying concept is that legal argument is a discussion

seeking to determine the legal premises properly applicable to the case.

Offering Evidence

[5] Paragraph (a)(3) requires that the lawyer refuse to offer evidence that the lawyer knows

to be false, regardless of the client's wishes. This duty is premised on the lawyer's obligation as an

officer of the court to prevent the trier of fact from being misled by false evidence. A lawyer does not

violate this Rule if the lawyer offers the evidence for the purpose of establishing its falsity.

[6] If a lawyer knows that the client intends to testify falsely or wants the lawyer to introduce

false evidence, the lawyer should seek to persuade the client that the evidence should not be offered.

If the persuasion is ineffective and the lawyer continues to represent the client, the lawyer must refuse

to offer the false evidence. If only a portion of a witness's testimony will be false, the lawyer may call

the witness to testify but may not elicit or otherwise permit the witness to present the testimony that

the lawyer knows is false.

[7] The duties stated in paragraphs (a) and (b) apply to all lawyers, including defense counsel

in criminal cases. In some jurisdictions, however, courts have required counsel to present the accused

as a witness or to give a narrative statement if the accused so desires, even if counsel knows that the

testimony or statement will be false. The obligation of the advocate under the Rules of Professional

Conduct is subordinate to such requirements. See also Comment [9].

[8] The prohibition against offering false evidence only applies if the lawyer knows that the

evidence is false. A lawyer's reasonable belief that evidence is false does not preclude its presentation

to the trier of fact. A lawyer's knowledge that evidence is false, however, can be inferred from the

circumstances. See Rule 1.0(f). Thus, although a lawyer should resolve doubts about the veracity of

testimony or other evidence in favor of the client, the lawyer cannot ignore an obvious falsehood.

[9] Although paragraph (a)(3) only prohibits a lawyer from offering evidence the lawyer

knows to be false, it permits the lawyer to refuse to offer testimony or other proof that the lawyer

reasonably believes is false. Offering such proof may reflect adversely on the lawyer's ability to

discriminate in the quality of evidence and thus impair the lawyer's effectiveness as an advocate.

Because of the special protections historically provided criminal defendants, however, this Rule does

not permit a lawyer to refuse to offer the testimony of such a client where the lawyer reasonably

believes but does not know that the testimony will be false. Unless the lawyer knows the testimony

will be false, the lawyer must honor the client's decision to testify. See also Comment [7].

Remedial Measures

[10] Having offered material evidence in the belief that it was true, a lawyer may

subsequently come to know that the evidence is false. Or, a lawyer may be surprised when the lawyer's

client, or another witness called by the lawyer, offers testimony the lawyer knows to be false, either

during the lawyer's direct examination or in response to cross-examination by the opposing lawyer. In

such situations or if the lawyer knows of the falsity of testimony elicited from the client during a

deposition, the lawyer must take reasonable remedial measures. In such situations, the advocate's

proper course is to remonstrate with the client confidentially, advise the client of the lawyer's duty of

candor to the tribunal and seek the client's cooperation with respect to the withdrawal or correction of

the false statements or evidence. If that fails, the advocate must take further remedial action. If

withdrawal from the representation is not permitted or will not undo the effect of the false evidence,

the advocate must make such disclosure to the tribunal as is reasonably necessary to remedy the

situation, even if doing so requires the lawyer to reveal information that otherwise would be protected

by Rule 1.6. It is for the tribunal then to determine what should be done—making a statement about

the matter to the trier of fact, ordering a mistrial or perhaps nothing.

[11] The disclosure of a client's false testimony can result in grave consequences to the client,

including not only a sense of betrayal but also loss of the case and perhaps a prosecution for perjury.

159

But the alternative is that the lawyer cooperate in deceiving the court, thereby subverting the truthfinding process which the adversary system is designed to implement. See Rule 1.2(d). Furthermore,

unless it is clearly understood that the lawyer will act upon the duty to disclose the existence of false

evidence, the client can simply reject the lawyer's advice to reveal the false evidence and insist that the

lawyer keep silent. Thus the client could in effect coerce the lawyer into being a party to fraud on the

court.

Preserving Integrity of Adjudicative Process

[12] Lawyers have a special obligation to protect a tribunal against criminal or fraudulent

conduct that undermines the integrity of the adjudicative process, such as bribing, intimidating or

otherwise unlawfully communicating with a witness, juror, court official or other participant in the

proceeding, unlawfully destroying or concealing documents or other evidence or failing to disclose

information to the tribunal when required by law to do so. Thus, paragraph (b) requires a lawyer to

take reasonable remedial measures, including disclosure if necessary, whenever the lawyer knows that

a person, including the lawyer's client, intends to engage, is engaging or has engaged in criminal or

fraudulent conduct related to the proceeding.

Duration of Obligation

[13] A practical time limit on the obligation to rectify false evidence or false statements of

law and fact has to be established. The conclusion of the proceeding is a reasonably definite point for

the termination of the obligation. A proceeding has concluded within the meaning of this Rule when a

final judgment in the proceeding has been affirmed on appeal or the time for review has passed.

Ex Parte Proceedings

[14] Ordinarily, an advocate has the limited responsibility of presenting one side of the

matters that a tribunal should consider in reaching a decision; the conflicting position is expected to be

presented by the opposing party. However, in any ex parte proceeding, such as an application for a

temporary restraining order, there is no balance of presentation by opposing advocates. The object of

an ex parte proceeding is nevertheless to yield a substantially just result. The judge has an affirmative

responsibility to accord the absent party just consideration. The lawyer for the represented party has

the correlative duty to make disclosures of material facts known to the lawyer and that the lawyer

reasonably believes are necessary to an informed decision.

Withdrawal

[15] Normally, a lawyer's compliance with the duty of candor imposed by this Rule does not

require that the lawyer withdraw from the representation of a client whose interests will be or have

been adversely affected by the lawyer's disclosure. The lawyer may, however, be required by Rule

1.16(a) to seek permission of the tribunal to withdraw if the lawyer's compliance with this Rule's duty

of candor results in such an extreme deterioration of the client-lawyer relationship that the lawyer can

no longer competently represent the client. Also see Rule 1.16(b) for the circumstances in which a

lawyer will be permitted to seek a tribunal's permission to withdraw. In connection with a request for

permission to withdraw that is premised on a client's misconduct, a lawyer may reveal information

relating to the representation only to the extent reasonably necessary to comply with this Rule or as

otherwise permitted by Rule 1.6.

SCR 20:3.4 Fairness to opposing party and counsel

A lawyer shall not:

(a) unlawfully obstruct another party's access to evidence or

unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having

potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another

person to do any such act;

160

(b) falsify evidence, counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely, or

offer an inducement to a witness that is prohibited by law;

(c) knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal,

except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation

exists;

(d) in pretrial procedure, make a frivolous discovery request or fail

to make reasonably diligent effort to comply with a legally proper

discovery request by an opposing party;

(e) in trial, allude to any matter that the lawyer does not reasonably

believe is relevant or that will not be supported by admissible evidence,

assert personal knowledge of facts in issue except when testifying as a

witness, or state a personal opinion as to the justness of a cause, the

credibility of a witness, the culpability of a civil litigant or the guilt or

innocence of an accused; or

(f) request a person other than a client to refrain from voluntarily

giving relevant information to another party unless:

(1) the person is a relative or an employee or other agent of a client;

and

(2) the lawyer reasonably believes that the person's interests will

not be adversely affected by refraining from giving such information.

ABA COMMENT

[1] The procedure of the adversary system contemplates that the evidence in a case is to be

marshalled competitively by the contending parties. Fair competition in the adversary system is

secured by prohibitions against destruction or concealment of evidence, improperly influencing

witnesses, obstructive tactics in discovery procedure, and the like.

[2] Documents and other items of evidence are often essential to establish a claim or defense.

Subject to evidentiary privileges, the right of an opposing party, including the government, to obtain

evidence through discovery or subpoena is an important procedural right. The exercise of that right

can be frustrated if relevant material is altered, concealed or destroyed. Applicable law in many

jurisdictions makes it an offense to destroy material for purpose of impairing its availability in a

pending proceeding or one whose commencement can be foreseen. Falsifying evidence is also

generally a criminal offense. Paragraph (a) applies to evidentiary material generally, including

computerized information. Applicable law may permit a lawyer to take temporary possession of

physical evidence of client crimes for the purpose of conducting a limited examination that will not

alter or destroy material characteristics of the evidence. In such a case, applicable law may require the

lawyer to turn the evidence over to the police or other prosecuting authority, depending on the

circumstances.

[3] With regard to paragraph (b), it is not improper to pay a witness's expenses or to

compensate an expert witness on terms permitted by law. The common-law rule in most jurisdictions

is that it is improper to pay an occurrence witness any fee for testifying and that it is improper to pay

an expert witness a contingent fee.

161

[4] Paragraph (f) permits a lawyer to advise employees of a client to refrain from giving

information to another party, for the employees may identify their interests with those of the client.

See also Rule 4.2.

SCR 20:3.5 Impartiality and decorum of the tribunal

A lawyer shall not:

(a) seek to influence a judge, juror, prospective juror or other

official by means prohibited by law;

(b) communicate ex parte with such a person during the

proceeding unless authorized to do so by law or court order or for

scheduling purposes if permitted by the court. If communication between

a lawyer and judge has occurred in order to schedule the matter, the

lawyer involved shall promptly notify the lawyer for the other party or

the other party, if unrepresented, of such communication;

(c) communicate with a juror or prospective juror after discharge

of the jury if:

(1) the communication is prohibited by law or court order;

(2) the juror has made known to the lawyer a desire not to

communicate; or

(3) the communication involves misrepresentation, coercion,

duress or harassment; or

(d) engage in conduct intended to disrupt a tribunal.

WISCONSIN COMMITTEE COMMENT

Paragraph (b) differs from the Model Rule in that it expressly imposes a duty promptly to

notify other parties in the event of an ex parte communication with a judge concerning scheduling.

ABA COMMENT

[1] Many forms of improper influence upon a tribunal are proscribed by criminal law. Others

are specified in the ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct, with which an advocate should be familiar.

A lawyer is required to avoid contributing to a violation of such provisions.

During a proceeding a lawyer may not communicate ex parte with persons serving in an official

capacity in the proceeding, such as judges, masters or jurors, unless authorized to do so by law or court

order.

[2] A lawyer may on occasion want to communicate with a juror or prospective juror after

the jury has been discharged. The lawyer may do so unless the communication is prohibited by law or

a court order but must respect the desire of the juror not to talk with the lawyer. The lawyer may not

engage in improper conduct during the communication.

[3] The advocate's function is to present evidence and argument so that the cause may be

decided according to law. Refraining from abusive or obstreperous conduct is a corollary of the

advocate's right to speak on behalf of litigants. A lawyer may stand firm against abuse by a judge but

should avoid reciprocation; the judge's default is no justification for similar dereliction by an advocate.

An advocate can present the cause, protect the record for subsequent review and preserve professional

162

integrity by patient firmness no less effectively than by belligerence or theatrics.

The duty to refrain from disruptive conduct applies to any proceeding of a tribunal, including a

deposition. See Rule 1.0(m).

SCR 20:3.6 Trial publicity

(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the

investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial

statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be

disseminated by means of public communication and will have a

substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative

proceeding in the matter.

(b) A statement referred to in par. (a) ordinarily is likely to have

such an effect when it refers to a civil matter triable to a jury, a criminal

matter, or any other proceeding that could result in deprivation of liberty,

and the statement relates to:

(1) the character, credibility, reputation or criminal record of a

party, suspect in a criminal investigation or witness, or the identity of a

witness, or the expected testimony of a party or witness;

(2) in a criminal case or proceeding that could result in deprivation

of liberty, the possibility of a plea of guilty to the offense or the existence

or contents of any confession, admission, or statement given by a

defendant or suspect or that person's refusal or failure to make a

statement;

(3) the performance or results of any examination or test or the

refusal or failure of a person to submit to an examination or test, or the

identity or nature of physical evidence expected to be presented;

(4) any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant or

suspect in a criminal case or proceeding that could result in deprivation

of liberty;

(5) information the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is

likely to be inadmissible as evidence in a trial and would if disclosed

create a substantial risk of prejudicing an impartial trial; or

(6) the fact that a defendant has been charged with a crime, unless

there is included therein a statement explaining that the charge is merely

an accusation and that the defendant is presumed innocent until and

unless proven guilty.

(c) Notwithstanding pars. (a) and (b)(1) through (5), a lawyer may

state:

(1) the claim, offense or defense involved and, except when

prohibited by law, the identity of the persons involved;

163

(2) information contained in a public record;

(3) that an investigation of a matter is in progress;

(4) the scheduling or result of any step in litigation;

(5) a request for assistance in obtaining evidence and information

necessary thereto;

(6) a warning of danger concerning the behavior of a person

involved, when there is reason to believe that there exists the likelihood

of substantial harm to an individual or to the public interest; and

(7) in a criminal case, in addition to subs. (1) through (6):

(i) the identity, residence, occupation and family status of

the accused;

(ii) if the accused has not been apprehended, information

necessary to aid in apprehension of that person;

(iii) the fact, time and place of arrest; and

(iv) the identity of investigating and arresting officers or

agencies and the length of the investigation.

(d) Notwithstanding par. (a), a lawyer may make a statement that

a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the

substantial likelihood of undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not

initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer's client. A statement made pursuant

to this paragraph shall be limited to such information as is necessary to

mitigate the recent adverse publicity.

(e) No lawyer associated in a firm or government agency with a

lawyer subject to par. (a) shall make a statement prohibited by par. (a).

WISCONSIN COMMITTEE COMMENT

Paragraph (b) contains provisions found in ABA Comment [5] but not contained in the Model

Rule. Because of the addition of paragraph (b), this rule and the Model Rule have differing numbering,

so that care should be used in consulting the ABA Comment.

ABA COMMENT

[1] It is difficult to strike a balance between protecting the right to a fair trial and safeguarding

the right of free expression. Preserving the right to a fair trial necessarily entails some curtailment of

the information that may be disseminated about a party prior to trial, particularly where trial by jury is

involved. If there were no such limits, the result would be the practical nullification of the protective

effect of the rules of forensic decorum and the exclusionary rules of evidence. On the other hand, there

are vital social interests served by the free dissemination of information about events having legal

consequences and about legal proceedings themselves. The public has a right to know about threats to

its safety and measures aimed at assuring its security. It also has a legitimate interest in the conduct of

judicial proceedings, particularly in matters of general public concern. Furthermore, the subject matter

of legal proceedings is often of direct significance in debate and deliberation over questions of public

policy.

164

[2] Special rules of confidentiality may validly govern proceedings in juvenile, domestic

relations and mental disability proceedings, and perhaps other types of litigation. Rule 3.4(c) requires

compliance with such rules.

[3] The Rule sets forth a basic general prohibition against a lawyer's making statements that

the lawyer knows or should know will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an

adjudicative proceeding. Recognizing that the public value of informed commentary is great and the

likelihood of prejudice to a proceeding by the commentary of a lawyer who is not involved in the

proceeding is small, the Rule applies only to lawyers who are, or who have been involved in the

investigation or litigation of a case, and their associates.

[4] Paragraph (b) identifies specific matters about which a lawyer's statements would not

ordinarily be considered to present a substantial likelihood of material prejudice, and should not in any

event be considered prohibited by the general prohibition of paragraph (a). Paragraph (b) is not

intended to be an exhaustive listing of the subjects upon which a lawyer may make a statement, but

statements on other matters may be subject to paragraph (a).

[5] There are, on the other hand, certain subjects that are more likely than not to have a

material prejudicial effect on a proceeding, particularly when they refer to a civil matter triable to a

jury, a criminal matter, or any other proceeding that could result in incarceration. These subjects relate

to:

(1) the character, credibility, reputation or criminal record of a party, suspect in a criminal

investigation or witness, or the identity of a witness, or the expected testimony of a party or witness;

(2) in a criminal case or proceeding that could result in incarceration, the possibility of a plea

of guilty to the offense or the existence or contents of any confession, admission, or statement given

by a defendant or suspect or that person's refusal or failure to make a statement;

(3) the performance or results of any examination or test or the refusal or failure of a person

to submit to an examination or test, or the identity or nature of physical evidence expected to be

presented;

(4) any opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a defendant or suspect in a criminal case or

proceeding that could result in incarceration;

(5) information that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is likely to be inadmissible

as evidence in a trial and that would, if disclosed, create a substantial risk of prejudicing an impartial

trial; or

(6) the fact that a defendant has been charged with a crime, unless there is included therein a

statement explaining that the charge is merely an accusation and that the defendant is presumed

innocent until and unless proven guilty.

[6] Another relevant factor in determining prejudice is the nature of the proceeding involved.

Criminal jury trials will be most sensitive to extrajudicial speech. Civil trials may be less sensitive.

Non-jury hearings and arbitration proceedings may be even less affected. The Rule will still place

limitations on prejudicial comments in these cases, but the likelihood of prejudice may be different

depending on the type of proceeding.

[7] Finally, extrajudicial statements that might otherwise raise a question under this Rule may

be permissible when they are made in response to statements made publicly by another party, another

party's lawyer, or third persons, where a reasonable lawyer would believe a public response is required

in order to avoid prejudice to the lawyer's client. When prejudicial statements have been publicly made

by others, responsive statements may have the salutary effect of lessening any resulting adverse impact

on the adjudicative proceeding. Such responsive statements should be limited to contain only such

information as is necessary to mitigate undue prejudice created by the statements made by others.

[8] See Rule 3.8(f) for additional duties of prosecutors in connection with extrajudicial

statements about criminal proceedings.

165

SCR 20:3.7 Lawyer as witness

(a) A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer

is likely to be a necessary witness unless:

(1) the testimony relates to an uncontested issue;

(2) the testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services

rendered in the case; or

(3) disqualification of the lawyer would work substantial hardship

on the client.

(b) A lawyer may act as advocate in a trial in which another lawyer

in the lawyer's firm is likely to be called as a witness unless precluded

from doing so by SCR 20:1.7 or SCR 20:1.9.

ABA COMMENT

[1] Combining the roles of advocate and witness can prejudice the tribunal and the opposing

party and can also involve a conflict of interest between the lawyer and client.

Advocate-Witness Rule

[2] The tribunal has proper objection when the trier of fact may be confused or misled by a

lawyer serving as both advocate and witness. The opposing party has proper objection where the

combination of roles may prejudice that party's rights in the litigation. A witness is required to testify

on the basis of personal knowledge, while an advocate is expected to explain and comment on evidence

given by others. It may not be clear whether a statement by an advocate-witness should be taken as

proof or as an analysis of the proof.

[3] To protect the tribunal, paragraph (a) prohibits a lawyer from simultaneously serving as

advocate and necessary witness except in those circumstances specified in paragraphs (a)(1) through

(a)(3). Paragraph (a)(1) recognizes that if the testimony will be uncontested, the ambiguities in the dual

role are purely theoretical. Paragraph (a)(2) recognizes that where the testimony concerns the extent

and value of legal services rendered in the action in which the testimony is offered, permitting the

lawyers to testify avoids the need for a second trial with new counsel to resolve that issue. Moreover,

in such a situation the judge has firsthand knowledge of the matter in issue; hence, there is less

dependence on the adversary process to test the credibility of the testimony.

[4] Apart from these two exceptions, paragraph (a)(3) recognizes that a balancing is required

between the interests of the client and those of the tribunal and the opposing party. Whether the tribunal

is likely to be misled or the opposing party is likely to suffer prejudice depends on the nature of the

case, the importance and probable tenor of the lawyer's testimony, and the probability that the lawyer's

testimony will conflict with that of other witnesses. Even if there is risk of such prejudice, in

determining whether the lawyer should be disqualified, due regard must be given to the effect of

disqualification on the lawyer's client. It is relevant that one or both parties could reasonably foresee

that the lawyer would probably be a witness. The conflict of interest principles stated in Rules 1.7, 1.9,

and 1.10 have no application to this aspect of the problem.

[5] Because the tribunal is not likely to be misled when a lawyer acts as advocate in a trial in

which another lawyer in the lawyer's firm will testify as a necessary witness, paragraph (b) permits the

lawyer to do so except in situations involving a conflict of interest.

166

Conflict of Interest

[6] In determining if it is permissible to act as advocate in a trial in which the lawyer will be

a necessary witness, the lawyer must also consider that the dual role may give rise to a conflict of

interest that will require compliance with Rules 1.7 or 1.9. For example, if there is likely to be

substantial conflict between the testimony of the client and that of the lawyer the representation

involves a conflict of interest that requires compliance with Rule 1.7. This would be true even though

the lawyer might not be prohibited by paragraph (a) from simultaneously serving as advocate and

witness because the lawyer's disqualification would work a substantial hardship on the client.

Similarly, a lawyer who might be permitted to simultaneously serve as an advocate and a witness by

paragraph (a)(3) might be precluded from doing so by Rule 1.9. The problem can arise whether the

lawyer is called as a witness on behalf of the client or is called by the opposing party. Determining

whether or not such a conflict exists is primarily the responsibility of the lawyer involved. If there is a

conflict of interest, the lawyer must secure the client's informed consent, confirmed in writing. In some

cases, the lawyer will be precluded from seeking the client's consent. See Rule 1.7. See Rule 1.0(b) for

the definition of "confirmed in writing" and Rule 1.0(e) for the definition of "informed consent."

[7] Paragraph (b) provides that a lawyer is not disqualified from serving as an advocate

because a lawyer with whom the lawyer is associated in a firm is precluded from doing so by paragraph

(a). If, however, the testifying lawyer would also be disqualified by Rule 1.7 or Rule 1.9 from

representing the client in the matter, other lawyers in the firm will be precluded from representing the

client by Rule 1.10 unless the client gives informed consent under the conditions stated in Rule 1.7.

SCR 20:3.8 Special responsibilities of a prosecutor

(a) A prosecutor in a criminal case or a proceeding that could result

in deprivation of liberty shall not prosecute a charge that the prosecutor

knows is not supported by probable cause.

(b) When communicating with an unrepresented person in the

context of an investigation or proceeding, a prosecutor shall inform the

person of the prosecutor's role and interest in the matter.

(c) When communicating with an unrepresented person who has a

constitutional or statutory right to counsel, the prosecutor shall inform the

person of the right to counsel and the procedures to obtain counsel and

shall give that person a reasonable opportunity to obtain counsel.

(d) When communicating with an unrepresented person a

prosecutor may discuss the matter, provide information regarding

settlement, and negotiate a resolution which may include a waiver of

constitutional and statutory rights, but a prosecutor, other than a

municipal prosecutor, shall not:

(1) otherwise provide legal advice to the person, including, but not

limited to whether to obtain counsel, whether to accept or reject a

settlement offer, whether to waive important procedural rights or how the

tribunal is likely to rule in the case, or

(2) assist the person in the completion of (i) guilty plea forms (ii)

forms for the waiver of a preliminary hearing or (iii) forms for the waiver

of a jury trial.

167

(e) A prosecutor shall not subpoena a lawyer in a grand jury or

other proceeding to present evidence about a past or present client unless

the prosecutor reasonably believes:

(1) the information sought is not protected from disclosure by any

applicable privilege;

(2) the evidence sought is essential to the successful completion of

an ongoing investigation or prosecution; and

(3) there is no other feasible alternative to obtain the information.

(f) A prosecutor, other than a municipal prosecutor, in a criminal

case or a proceeding that could result in deprivation of liberty shall:

(1) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or

information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the

accused or mitigates the offense, and, in connection with sentencing,

disclose to the defense and to the tribunal all unprivileged mitigating

information known to the prosecutor, except when the prosecutor is

relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal; and

(2) exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law

enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or

associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an

extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from

making under SCR 20:3.6.

(g) When a prosecutor knows of new, credible, and material

evidence creating a reasonable likelihood that a convicted defendant did

not commit an offense of which the defendant was convicted, the

prosecutor shall do all of the following:

(1) promptly disclose that evidence to an appropriate court or

authority; and

(2) if the conviction was obtained in the prosecutor's jurisdiction:

(i) promptly make reasonable efforts to disclose that evidence to

the defendant unless a court authorizes delay; and

(ii) make reasonable efforts to undertake an investigation or cause

an investigation to be undertaken, to determine whether the defendant

was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit.

(h) When a prosecutor knows of clear and convincing evidence

establishing that a defendant in the prosecutor's jurisdiction was

convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit, the prosecutor

shall seek to remedy the conviction.

WISCONSIN COMMENT

168

The Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule differs from the Model Rule in several respects: (1)

paragraph (b) adds the reference to "in the context of an investigation or proceeding"; (2) paragraphs

(c) and (d) expand the rule by deleting a reference to communications occurring only "after the

commencement of litigation"; (3) paragraphs (d) and (f) exempt municipal prosecutors from certain

requirements of the rule. Care should be used in consulting the ABA Comment.

Wisconsin prosecutors have long embraced the notion that the duty to do justice

requires both holding offenders accountable and protecting the innocent. New Rule 20:3.8(g) and (h)

reinforces this notion. The Wisconsin rule differs slightly from the new A.B.A. rule to recognize limits

in the investigative resources of Wisconsin prosecutors.

This rule was not designed to address significant changes in the law that might affect the

incarceration status of a number of prisoners, such as where a statute is declared unconstitutional.

ABA COMMENT

[1] A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an

advocate. This responsibility carries with it specific obligations to see that the defendant is accorded

procedural justice and that guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence. Precisely how far the

prosecutor is required to go in this direction is a matter of debate and varies in different jurisdictions.

Many jurisdictions have adopted the ABA Standards of Criminal Justice Relating to the Prosecution

Function, which in turn are the product of prolonged and careful deliberation by lawyers experienced

in both criminal prosecution and defense. Applicable law may require other measures by the prosecutor

and knowing disregard of those obligations or a systematic abuse of prosecutorial discretion could

constitute a violation of Rule 8.4.

[2] In some jurisdictions, a defendant may waive a preliminary hearing and thereby lose a

valuable opportunity to challenge probable cause. Accordingly, prosecutors should not seek to obtain

waivers of preliminary hearings or other important pretrial rights from unrepresented accused persons.

Paragraph (c) does not apply, however, to an accused appearing pro se with the approval of the tribunal.

Nor does it forbid the lawful questioning of an uncharged suspect who has knowingly waived the rights

to counsel and silence.

[3] The exception in paragraph (d) recognizes that a prosecutor may seek an appropriate

protective order from the tribunal if disclosure of information to the defense could result in substantial

harm to an individual or to the public interest.

[4] Paragraph (e) is intended to limit the issuance of lawyer subpoenas in grand jury and other

criminal proceedings to those situations in which there is a genuine need to intrude into the clientlawyer relationship.

[5] Paragraph (f) supplements Rule 3.6, which prohibits extrajudicial statements that have a

substantial likelihood of prejudicing an adjudicatory proceeding. In the context of a criminal

prosecution, a prosecutor's extrajudicial statement can create the additional problem of increasing

public condemnation of the accused. Although the announcement of an indictment, for example, will

necessarily have severe consequences for the accused, a prosecutor can, and should, avoid comments

which have no legitimate law enforcement purpose and have a substantial likelihood of increasing

public opprobrium of the accused. Nothing in this Comment is intended to restrict the statements which

a prosecutor may make which comply with Rule 3.6(b) or 3.6(c).

[6] Like other lawyers, prosecutors are subject to Rules 5.1 and 5.3, which relate to

responsibilities regarding lawyers and nonlawyers who work for or are associated with the lawyer's

office. Paragraph (f) reminds the prosecutor of the importance of these obligations in connection with

169

the unique dangers of improper extrajudicial statements in a criminal case. In addition, paragraph (f)

requires a prosecutor to exercise reasonable care to prevent persons assisting or associated with the

prosecutor from making improper extrajudicial statements, even when such persons are not under the

direct supervision of the prosecutor. Ordinarily, the reasonable care standard will be satisfied if the

prosecutor issues the appropriate cautions to law-enforcement personnel and other relevant

individuals.

[7] When a prosecutor knows of new, credible and material evidence creating a reasonable

likelihood that a person outside the prosecutor's jurisdiction was convicted of a crime that the person

did not commit, paragraph (g) requires prompt disclosure to the court or other appropriate authority,

such as the chief prosecutor of the jurisdiction where the conviction occurred. If the conviction was

obtained in the prosecutor's jurisdiction, paragraph (g) requires the prosecutor to examine the evidence

and undertake further investigation to determine whether the defendant is in fact innocent or make

reasonable efforts to cause another appropriate authority to undertake the necessary investigation, and

to promptly disclose the evidence to the court and, absent court-authorized delay, to the defendant.

Consistent with the objectives of Rules 4.2 and 4.3, disclosure to a represented defendant must be

made through the defendant's counsel, and, in the case of an unrepresented defendant, would ordinarily

be accompanied by a request to a court for the appointment of counsel to assist the defendant in taking

such legal measures as may be appropriate.

[8] Under paragraph (h), once the prosecutor knows of clear and convincing evidence that

the defendant was convicted of an offense that the defendant did not commit, the prosecutor must seek

to remedy the conviction. Necessary steps may include disclosure of the evidence to the defendant,

requesting that the court appoint counsel for an unrepresented indigent defendant and, where

appropriate, notifying the court that the prosecutor has knowledge that the defendant did not commit

the offense of which the defendant was convicted.

[9] A prosecutor's independent judgment, made in good faith, that the new evidence is not of

such nature as to trigger the obligations of sections (g) and (h), though subsequently determined to

have been erroneous, does not constitute a violation of this Rule.

SCR 20:3.9 Advocate in nonadjudicative proceedings

A lawyer representing a client before a legislative body of

administrative agency in a nonadjudicative proceeding shall disclose that

the appearance is in a representative capacity and shall conform to the

provisions of SCR 20:3.3(a) through (c), SCR 20:3.4(a) through (c), and

SCR 20:3.5.

ABA COMMENT

[1] In representation before bodies such as legislatures, municipal councils, and executive

and administrative agencies acting in a rule-making or policy-making capacity, lawyers present facts,

formulate issues and advance argument in the matters under consideration. The decision-making body,

like a court, should be able to rely on the integrity of the submissions made to it. A lawyer appearing

before such a body must deal with it honestly and in conformity with applicable rules of procedure.

See Rules 3.3(a) through (c), 3.4(a) through (c) and 3.5.

[2] Lawyers have no exclusive right to appear before nonadjudicative bodies, as they do

before a court. The requirements of this Rule therefore may subject lawyers to regulations inapplicable

170

to advocates who are not lawyers. However, legislatures and administrative agencies have a right to

expect lawyers to deal with them as they deal with courts.

[3] This Rule only applies when a lawyer represents a client in connection with an official

hearing or meeting of a governmental agency or a legislative body to which the lawyer or the lawyer's

client is presenting evidence or argument. It does not apply to representation of a client in a negotiation

or other bilateral transaction with a governmental agency or in connection with an application for a

license or other privilege or the client's compliance with generally applicable reporting requirements,

such as the filing of income-tax returns. Nor does it apply to the representation of a client in connection

with an investigation or examination of the client's affairs conducted by government investigators or

examiners. Representation in such matters is governed by Rules 4.1 through 4.4.

SCR 20:3.10 Omitted.

TRANSACTIONS WITH PERSONS

OTHER THAN CLIENTS

SCR 20:4.1 Truthfulness in statements to others

(a) In the course of representing a client a lawyer shall not

knowingly:

(1) make a false statement of a material fact or law to a 3rd person;

or

(2) fail to disclose a material fact to a 3rd person when disclosure

is necessary to avoid assisting a criminal or fraudulent act by a client,

unless disclosure is prohibited by SCR 20:1.6.

(b) Notwithstanding par. (a), SCR 20:5.3(c)(1), and SCR 20:8.4, a

lawyer may advise or supervise others with respect to lawful investigative

activities.

WISCONSIN COMMITTEE COMMENT

Paragraph (b) has no counterpart in the Model Rule. As a general matter, a lawyer may advise

a client concerning whether proposed conduct is lawful. See SCR 20:1.2(d). This is allowed even in

circumstances in which the conduct involves some form of deception, for example the use of testers

to investigate unlawful discrimination or the use of undercover detectives to investigate theft in the

workplace. When the lawyer personally participates in the deception, however, serious questions arise.

See SCR 20:8.4(c). Paragraph (b) recognizes that, where the law expressly permits it, lawyers may

have limited involvement in certain investigative activities involving deception.

Lawful investigative activity may involve a lawyer as an advisor or supervisor only when the

lawyer in good faith believes there is a reasonable possibility that unlawful activity has taken place, is

taking place or will take place in the foreseeable future.

ABA COMMENT

171

Misrepresentation

[1] A lawyer is required to be truthful when dealing with others on a client's behalf, but

generally has no affirmative duty to inform an opposing party of relevant facts. A misrepresentation

can occur if the lawyer incorporates or affirms a statement of another person that the lawyer knows is

false. Misrepresentations can also occur by partially true but misleading statements or omissions that

are the equivalent of affirmative false statements. For dishonest conduct that does not amount to a false

statement or for misrepresentations by a lawyer other than in the course of representing a client, see

Rule 8.4.

Statements of Fact

[2] This Rule refers to statements of fact. Whether a particular statement should be regarded

as one of fact can depend on the circumstances. Under generally accepted conventions in negotiation,

certain types of statements ordinarily are not taken as statements of material fact. Estimates of price or

value placed on the subject of a transaction and a party's intentions as to an acceptable settlement of a

claim are ordinarily in this category, and so is the existence of an undisclosed principal except where

nondisclosure of the principal would constitute fraud. Lawyers should be mindful of their obligations

under applicable law to avoid criminal and tortious misrepresentation.

Crime or Fraud by Client

[3] Under Rule 1.2(d), a lawyer is prohibited from counseling or assisting a client in conduct

that the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent. Paragraph (b) states a specific application of the

principle set forth in Rule 1.2(d) and addresses the situation where a client's crime or fraud takes the

form of a lie or misrepresentation. Ordinarily, a lawyer can avoid assisting a client's crime or fraud by

withdrawing from the representation. Sometimes it may be necessary for the lawyer to give notice of

the fact of withdrawal and to disaffirm an opinion, document, affirmation or the like. In extreme cases,

substantive law may require a lawyer to disclose information relating to the representation to avoid

being deemed to have assisted the client's crime or fraud. If the lawyer can avoid assisting a client's

crime or fraud only by disclosing this information, then under paragraph (b) the lawyer is required to

do so, unless the disclosure is prohibited by Rule 1.6.

SCR 20:4.2 Communication with person represented by

counsel

(a)In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about

the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be

represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the

consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by law or a court

order.

(b) An otherwise unrepresented party to whom limited scope

representation is being provided or has been provided in accordance with

SCR 20:1.2(c) is considered to be unrepresented for purposes of this rule

unless the lawyer providing limited scope representation notifies the

opposing lawyer otherwise.

172

ABA COMMENT

[1] This Rule contributes to the proper functioning of the legal system by protecting a person

who has chosen to be represented by a lawyer in a matter against possible overreaching by other

lawyers who are participating in the matter, interference by those lawyers with the client-lawyer

relationship and the uncounselled disclosure of information relating to the representation.

[2] This Rule applies to communications with any person who is represented by counsel

concerning the matter to which the communication relates.

[3] The Rule applies even though the represented person initiates or consents to the

communication. A lawyer must immediately terminate communication with a person if, after

commencing communication, the lawyer learns that the person is one with whom communication is

not permitted by this Rule.

[4] This Rule does not prohibit communication with a represented person, or an employee or

agent of such a person, concerning matters outside the representation. For example, the existence of a

controversy between a government agency and a private party, or between two organizations, does not

prohibit a lawyer for either from communicating with nonlawyer representatives of the other regarding

a separate matter. Nor does this Rule preclude communication with a represented person who is

seeking advice from a lawyer who is not otherwise representing a client in the matter. A lawyer may

not make a communication prohibited by this Rule through the acts of another. See Rule 8.4(a). Parties

to a matter may communicate directly with each other, and a lawyer is not prohibited from advising a

client concerning a communication that the client is legally entitled to make. Also, a lawyer having

independent justification or legal authorization for communicating with a represented person is

permitted to do so.

[5] Communications authorized by law may include communications by a lawyer on behalf

of a client who is exercising a constitutional or other legal right to communicate with the government.

Communications authorized by law may also include investigative activities of lawyers representing

governmental entities, directly or through investigative agents, prior to the commencement of criminal

or civil enforcement proceedings. When communicating with the accused in a criminal matter, a

government lawyer must comply with this Rule in addition to honoring the constitutional rights of the

accused. The fact that a communication does not violate a state or federal constitutional right is

insufficient to establish that the communication is permissible under this Rule.

[6] A lawyer who is uncertain whether a communication with a represented person is

permissible may seek a court order. A lawyer may also seek a court order in exceptional circumstances

to authorize a communication that would otherwise be prohibited by this Rule, for example, where

communication with a person represented by counsel is necessary to avoid reasonably certain injury.

[7] In the case of a represented organization, this Rule prohibits communications with a

constituent of the organization who supervises, directs or regularly consults with the organization's

lawyer concerning the matter or has authority to obligate the organization with respect to the matter or

whose act or omission in connection with the matter may be imputed to the organization for purposes

of civil or criminal liability. Consent of the organization's lawyer is not required for communication

with a former constituent. If a constituent of the organization is represented in the matter by his or her

own counsel, the consent by that counsel to a communication will be sufficient for purposes of this

Rule. Compare Rule 3.4(f). In communicating with a current or former constituent of an organization,

a lawyer must not use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of the organization.

See Rule 4.4.

[8] The prohibition on communications with a represented person only applies in

circumstances where the lawyer knows that the person is in fact represented in the matter to be

discussed. This means that the lawyer has actual knowledge of the fact of the representation; but such

173

actual knowledge may be inferred from the circumstances. See Rule 1.0(f). Thus, the lawyer cannot

evade the requirement of obtaining the consent of counsel by closing eyes to the obvious.

[9] In the event the person with whom the lawyer communicates is not known to be

represented by counsel in the matter, the lawyer's communications are subject to Rule 4.3.

SCR 20:4.3 Dealing with unrepresented person

(a) In dealing on behalf of a client with a person who is not

represented by counsel, a lawyer shall inform such person of

the lawyer's role in the matter. When the lawyer knows or

reasonably should know that the unrepresented person

misunderstands the lawyer's role in the matter, the lawyer shall

make reasonable efforts to correct the misunderstanding. The

lawyer shall not give legal advice to an unrepresented person,

other than the advice to secure counsel, if the lawyer knows or

reasonably should know that the interests of such a person are

or have a reasonable possibility of being in conflict with the

interests of the client.

(b) An otherwise unrepresented party to whom limited scope

representation is being provided or has been provided in

accordance with SCR 20.1.2(c) is considered to be

unrepresented for purposes of this rule unless the lawyer

providing limited scope representation notifies the opposing

lawyer otherwise.

WISCONSIN COMMENT

A municipal prosecutor's obligations under this rule should be read in conjunction with SCR

20:3.8(d) and (f).

WISCONSIN COMMITTEE COMMENT

This Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule differs from the Model Rule in requiring lawyers to

inform unrepresented persons of the lawyer's role in the matter, whereas the Model Rule requires only

that the lawyer not state or imply that the lawyer is disinterested. A similar obligation to clarify the

lawyer's role is expressed in SCR 20:1.13(f), SCR 20:2.4, SCR 20:3.8(b), and SCR 20:4.1.

ABA COMMENT

[1] An unrepresented person, particularly one not experienced in dealing with legal matters,

might assume that a lawyer is disinterested in loyalties or is a disinterested authority on the law even

when the lawyer represents a client. In order to avoid a misunderstanding, a lawyer will typically need

to identify the lawyer's client and, where necessary, explain that the client has interests opposed to

174

those of the unrepresented person. For misunderstandings that sometimes arise when a lawyer for an

organization deals with an unrepresented constituent, see Rule 1.13(f).

[2] The Rule distinguishes between situations involving unrepresented persons whose

interests may be adverse to those of the lawyer's client and those in which the person's interests are not

in conflict with the client's. In the former situation, the possibility that the lawyer will compromise the

unrepresented person's interests is so great that the Rule prohibits the giving of any advice, apart from

the advice to obtain counsel. Whether a lawyer is giving impermissible advice may depend on the

experience and sophistication of the unrepresented person, as well as the setting in which the behavior

and comments occur. This Rule does not prohibit a lawyer from negotiating the terms of a transaction

or settling a dispute with an unrepresented person. So long as the lawyer has explained that the lawyer

represents an adverse party and is not representing the person, the lawyer may inform the person of

the terms on which the lawyer's client will enter into an agreement or settle a matter, prepare documents

that require the person's signature and explain the lawyer's own view of the meaning of the document

or the lawyer's view of the underlying legal obligations.

SCR 20:4.4 Respect for rights of 3rd persons

(a) In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have

no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a 3rd

person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights

of such a person.

(b) A lawyer who receives a document or electronically stored

information relating to the representation of the lawyer's client and knows

or reasonably should know that the document or electronically stored

information was inadvertently sent shall promptly notify the sender.

(c) A lawyer who receives a document or electronically stored

information relating to the representation of the lawyer's client and knows

or reasonably should know that the document or electronically stored

information contains information protected by the lawyer-client privilege

or the work product rule and has been disclosed to the lawyer

inadvertently shall:

(1) immediately terminate review or use of the document or

electronically stored information;

(2) promptly notify the person or the person's lawyer if

communication with the person is prohibited by SCR 20:4.2 of the

inadvertent disclosure; and

(3) abide by that person's or lawyer's instructions with respect to

disposition of the document or electronically stored information until

obtaining a definitive ruling on the proper disposition from a court with

appropriate jurisdiction.

WISCONSIN COMMENT

This Rule, unlike its Model Rule counterpart, contains paragraph (c), which

175

specifically applies to information protected by the lawyer-client privilege and the work product rule.

If a lawyer knows that the document or electronically stored information contains information

protected by the lawyer-client privilege or the work product rule and has been disclosed to the lawyer

inadvertently, then this Rule requires the lawyer to immediately terminate review or use of the

document or electronically stored information, promptly notify the person or the person's lawyer if

communication with the person is prohibited by SCR 20:4.2 of the inadvertent disclosure, and abide

by that person's or lawyer's instructions with respect to disposition of the document or electronically

stored information until obtaining a definitive ruling on the proper disposition from a court with

appropriate jurisdiction.

Due to substantive and numbering differences, special care should be taken in consulting the

ABA Comment.

ABA COMMENT

[1] Responsibility to a client requires a lawyer to subordinate the interests of others to those

of the client, but that responsibility does not imply that a lawyer may disregard the rights of third

persons. It is impractical to catalogue all such rights, but they include legal restrictions on methods of

obtaining evidence from third persons and unwarranted intrusions into privileged relationships, such

as the client-lawyer relationship.

[2] Paragraph (b) recognizes that lawyers sometimes receive a document or electronically

stored information that was mistakenly sent or produced by opposing parties or their lawyers. A

document or electronically stored information is inadvertently sent when it is accidently transmitted,

such as when an email or letter is misaddressed or a document or electronically stored information is

accidentally included with information that was intentionally transmitted. If a lawyer knows or

reasonably should know that such a document or electronically stored information was sent

inadvertently, then this Rule requires the lawyer to promptly notify the sender in order to permit that

person to take protective measures. Whether the lawyer is required to take additional steps, such as

returning the original document or electronically stored information, is a matter of law beyond the

scope of these Rules, as is the question of whether the privileged status of a document or electronically

stored information has been waived. Similarly, this Rule does not address the legal duties of a lawyer

who receives a document or electronically stored information that the lawyer knows or reasonably

should know may have been inappropriately obtained by the sending person. For purposes of this Rule,

"document or electronically stored information" includes, in addition to paper documents, email or

other forms of electronically stored information, including embedded data (commonly referred to as

"metadata"), that is subject to being read or put into readable form. Metadata in electronic documents

creates an obligation under this Rule only if the receiving lawyer knows or reasonably should know

that the metadata was inadvertently sent to the receiving lawyer.

[3] Some lawyers may choose to return a document or delete electronically stored information

unread, for example, when the lawyer learns before receiving it that it was inadvertently sent. Where

a lawyer is not required by applicable law to do so, the decision to voluntarily return such a document

or delete electronically stored information is a matter of professional judgment ordinarily reserved to

the lawyer. See Rules 1.2 and 1.4.

176

SCR 20:4.5 Guardians ad litem

A lawyer appointed to act as a guardian ad litem or as an attorney

for the best interests of an individual represents, and shall act in, the

individual's best interests, even if doing so is contrary to the individual's

wishes. A lawyer so appointed shall comply with the Rules of

Professional Conduct that are consistent with the lawyer's role in

representing the best interests of the individual rather than the individual

personally.

WISCONSIN COMMENT

The Model Rules do not contain a counterpart provision. This rule reflects established case

law that a guardian ad litem in Wisconsin is a lawyer who represents the best interests of an individual,

not the individual personally. See Paige K.B. v. Molepske, 219 Wis. 2d 418, 580 N.W.2d 289 (1998);

In re Steveon R.A., 196 Wis. 2d 171, 537 N.W.2d 142 (Ct. App. 1995). Supreme Court Rules,

Chapters 35—36, govern eligibility for appointment as guardian ad litem in certain situations.

This rule expressly recognizes that a lawyer who represents the best interests of the individual

does not have a client in the traditional sense but must comply with the Rules of Professional Conduct

to the extent the rules apply.

LAW FIRMS AND ASSOCIATIONS

SCR 20:5.1 Responsibilities of partners, managers, and

supervisory lawyers

(a) A partner in a law firm, and a lawyer who individually or

together with other lawyers possesses comparable managerial authority

in a law firm, shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in

effect measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers in the firm

conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct.

(b) A lawyer having direct supervisory authority over another

lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the other lawyer

conforms to the Rules of Professional Conduct.

(c) A lawyer shall be responsible for another lawyer's violation of

the Rules of Professional Conduct if:

(1) the lawyer orders or, with knowledge of the specific conduct,

ratifies the conduct involved; or

(2) the lawyer is a partner or has comparable managerial authority

in the law firm in which the other lawyer practices, or has direct

supervisory authority over the other lawyer, and knows of the conduct at

a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take

177

reasonable remedial action.

ABA COMMENT

[1] Paragraph (a) applies to lawyers who have managerial authority over the professional

work of a firm. See Rule 1.0(c). This includes members of a partnership, the shareholders in a law firm

organized as a professional corporation, and members of other associations authorized to practice law;

lawyers having comparable managerial authority in a legal services organization or a law department

of an enterprise or government agency; and lawyers who have intermediate managerial responsibilities

in a firm. Paragraph (b) applies to lawyers who have supervisory authority over the work of other

lawyers in a firm.

[2] Paragraph (a) requires lawyers with managerial authority within a firm to make reasonable

efforts to establish internal policies and procedures designed to provide reasonable assurance that all

lawyers in the firm will conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Such policies and procedures

include those designed to detect and resolve conflicts of interest, identify dates by which actions must

be taken in pending matters, account for client funds and property and ensure that inexperienced

lawyers are properly supervised.

[3] Other measures that may be required to fulfill the responsibility prescribed in paragraph

(a) can depend on the firm's structure and the nature of its practice. In a small firm of experienced

lawyers, informal supervision and periodic review of compliance with the required systems ordinarily

will suffice. In a large firm, or in practice situations in which difficult ethical problems frequently arise,

more elaborate measures may be necessary. Some firms, for example, have a procedure whereby junior

lawyers can make confidential referral of ethical problems directly to a designated senior partner or

special committee. See Rule 5.2. Firms, whether large or small, may also rely on continuing legal

education in professional ethics. In any event, the ethical atmosphere of a firm can influence the

conduct of all its members and the partners may not assume that all lawyers associated with the firm

will inevitably conform to the Rules.

[4] Paragraph (c) expresses a general principle of personal responsibility for acts of another.

See also Rule 8.4(a).

[5] Paragraph (c)(2) defines the duty of a partner or other lawyer having comparable

managerial authority in a law firm, as well as a lawyer who has direct supervisory authority over

performance of specific legal work by another lawyer. Whether a lawyer has supervisory authority in

particular circumstances is a question of fact. Partners and lawyers with comparable authority have at

least indirect responsibility for all work being done by the firm, while a partner or manager in charge

of a particular matter ordinarily also has supervisory responsibility for the work of other firm lawyers

engaged in the matter. Appropriate remedial action by a partner or managing lawyer would depend on

the immediacy of that lawyer's involvement and the seriousness of the misconduct. A supervisor is

required to intervene to prevent avoidable consequences of misconduct if the supervisor knows that

the misconduct occurred. Thus, if a supervising lawyer knows that a subordinate misrepresented a

matter to an opposing party in negotiation, the supervisor as well as the subordinate has a duty to

correct the resulting misapprehension.

[6] Professional misconduct by a lawyer under supervision could reveal a violation of

paragraph (b) on the part of the supervisory lawyer even though it does not entail a violation of

paragraph (c) because there was no direction, ratification or knowledge of the violation.

[7] Apart from this Rule and Rule 8.4(a), a lawyer does not have disciplinary liability for the

conduct of a partner, associate or subordinate. Whether a lawyer may be liable civilly or criminally for

another lawyer's conduct is a question of law beyond the scope of these Rules.

[8] The duties imposed by this Rule on managing and supervising lawyers do not alter the

personal duty of each lawyer in a firm to abide by the Rules of Professional Conduct. See Rule 5.2(a).

178

SCR 20:5.2 Responsibilities of a subordinate lawyer

(a) A lawyer is bound by the Rules of Professional Conduct

notwithstanding that the lawyer acted at the direction of another person.

(b) A subordinate lawyer does not violate the Rules of Professional

Conduct if that lawyer acts in accordance with a supervisory lawyer's

reasonable resolution of an arguable question of professional duty.

ABA COMMENT

[1] Although a lawyer is not relieved of responsibility for a violation by the fact that the

lawyer acted at the direction of a supervisor, that fact may be relevant in determining whether a lawyer

had the knowledge required to render conduct a violation of the Rules. For example, if a subordinate

filed a frivolous pleading at the direction of a supervisor, the subordinate would not be guilty of a

professional violation unless the subordinate knew of the document's frivolous character.

[2] When lawyers in a supervisor-subordinate relationship encounter a matter involving

professional judgment as to ethical duty, the supervisor may assume responsibility for making the

judgment. Otherwise a consistent course of action or position could not be taken. If the question can

reasonably be answered only one way, the duty of both lawyers is clear and they are equally

responsible for fulfilling it. However, if the question is reasonably arguable, someone has to decide

upon the course of action. That authority ordinarily reposes in the supervisor, and a subordinate may

be guided accordingly. For example, if a question arises whether the interests of two clients conflict

under Rule 1.7, the supervisor's reasonable resolution of the question should protect the subordinate

professionally if the resolution is subsequently challenged.

SCR 20:5.3 Responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistance

With respect to a nonlawyer employed or retained by or associated

with a lawyer:

(a) a partner, and a lawyer who individually or together with other

lawyers possesses comparable managerial authority in a law firm shall

make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures

giving reasonable assurance that the person's conduct is compatible with

the professional obligations of the lawyer;

(b) a lawyer having direct supervisory authority over the

nonlawyer shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the person's

conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer; and

(c) a lawyer shall be responsible for conduct of such a person that

would be a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if engaged in

by a lawyer if:

(1) the lawyer orders or, with the knowledge of the specific

conduct, ratifies the conduct involved; or

(2) the lawyer is a partner or has comparable managerial authority

179

in the law firm in which the person is employed, or has direct supervisory

authority over the person, and knows of the conduct at a time when its

consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable

remedial action.

ABA COMMENT

[1] Paragraph (a) requires lawyers with managerial authority within a law firm to make

reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that

nonlawyers in the firm and nonlawyers outside the firm who work on firm matters act in a way

compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer. See Comment [6] to Rule 1.1 (retaining

lawyers outside the firm) and Comment [1] to Rule 5.1 (responsibilities with respect to lawyers within

a firm). Paragraph (b) applies to lawyers who have supervisory authority over such nonlawyers within

or outside the firm. Paragraph (c) specifies the circumstances in which a lawyer is responsible for the

conduct of such nonlawyers inside or outside the firm that would be a violation of the Rules of

Professional Conduct if engaged in by a lawyer.

[2] Lawyers generally employ assistants in their practice, including secretaries, investigators,

law student interns, and paraprofessionals. Such assistants, whether employees or independent

contractors, act for the lawyer in rendition of the lawyer's professional services. A lawyer must give

such assistants appropriate instruction and supervision concerning the ethical aspects of their

employment, particularly regarding the obligation not to disclose information relating to representation

of the client, and should be responsible for their work product. The measures employed in supervising

nonlawyers should take account of the fact that they do not have legal training and are not subject to

professional discipline.

[3] A lawyer may use nonlawyers outside the firm to assist the lawyer in rendering legal

services to the client. Examples include the retention of an investigative or paraprofessional service,

hiring a document management company to create and maintain a database for complex litigation,

sending client documents to a third party for printing or scanning, and using an Internet-based service

to store client information. When using such services outside the firm, a lawyer must make reasonable

efforts to ensure that the services are provided in a manner that is compatible with the lawyer's

professional obligations. The extent of this obligation will depend upon the circumstances, including

the education, experience and reputation of the nonlawyer; the nature of the services involved; the

terms of any arrangements concerning the protection of client information; and the legal and ethical

environments of the jurisdictions in which the services will be performed, particularly with regard to

confidentiality. See also Rules 1.1 (competence), 1.2 (allocation of authority), 1.4 (communication

with client), 1.6 (confidentiality), 5.4(a) (professional independence of the lawyer), and 5.5(a)

(unauthorized practice of law). When retaining or directing a nonlawyer outside the firm, a lawyer

should communicate directions appropriate under the circumstances to give reasonable assurance that

the nonlawyer's conduct is compatible with the professional obligations of the lawyer.

[4] Where the client directs the selection of a particular nonlawyer service provider outside

the firm, the lawyer ordinarily should agree with the client concerning the allocation of responsibility

for monitoring as between the client and the lawyer. See Rule 1.2. When making such an allocation

in a matter pending before a tribunal, lawyers and parties may have additional obligations that are a

matter of law beyond the scope of these Rules.

SCR 20:5.4 Professional independence of a lawyer

180

(a) A lawyer or law firm shall not share legal fees with a

nonlawyer, except that:

(1) an agreement by a lawyer with the lawyer's firm, partner, or

associate may provide for the payment of money, over a reasonable

period of time after the lawyer's death, to the lawyer's estate or to one or

more specified persons;

(2) a lawyer who purchases the practice of a deceased, disabled, or

disappeared lawyer may, pursuant to the provisions of SCR 20:1.17, pay

to the estate or other representative of that lawyer the agreed-upon

purchase price;

(3) a lawyer or law firm may include nonlawyer employees in a

compensation or retirement plan, even though the plan is based in whole

or in part on a profit-sharing arrangement; and

(4) a lawyer may share court-awarded legal fees with a nonprofit

organization that employed, retained or recommended employment of the

lawyer in the matter.

(b) A lawyer shall not form a partnership with a nonlawyer if any

of the activities of the partnership consist of the practice of law.

(c) A lawyer shall not permit a person who recommends, employs,

or pays the lawyer to render legal services for another to direct or regulate

the lawyer's professional judgment in rendering such legal services.

(d) A lawyer shall not practice with or in the form of a professional

corporation or association authorized to practice law for a profit, if:

(1) a nonlawyer owns any interest therein, except that a fiduciary

representative of the estate of a lawyer may hold the stock or interest of

the lawyer for a reasonable time during administration;

(2) a nonlawyer is a corporate director or officer thereof or

occupies the position of similar responsibility in any form of association

other than a corporation; or

(3) a nonlawyer has the right to direct or control the professional

judgment of a lawyer.

ABA COMMENT

[1] The provisions of this Rule express traditional limitations on sharing fees. These

limitations are to protect the lawyer's professional independence of judgment. Where someone other

than the client pays the lawyer's fee or salary, or recommends employment of the lawyer, that

arrangement does not modify the lawyer's obligation to the client. As stated in paragraph (c), such

arrangements should not interfere with the lawyer's professional judgment.

[2] This Rule also expresses traditional limitations on permitting a third party to direct or

regulate the lawyer's professional judgment in rendering legal services to another. See also Rule 1.8(f)

181

(lawyer may accept compensation from a third party as long as there is no interference with the lawyer's

independent professional judgment and the client gives informed consent).

SCR 20:5.5 Unauthorized practice of law; multijurisdictional

practice of law

(a) A lawyer shall not:

(1) practice law in a jurisdiction where doing so violates the

regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction except that a lawyer

admitted to practice in Wisconsin does not violate this rule by conduct in

another jurisdiction that is permitted in Wisconsin under SCR 20:5.5 (c)

and (d) for lawyers not admitted in Wisconsin; or

(2) assist another in practicing law in a jurisdiction where doing so

violates the regulation of the legal profession in that jurisdiction.

(b) A lawyer who is not admitted to practice in this jurisdiction

shall not:

(1) except as authorized by this rule or other law, establish an

office or maintain a systematic and continuous presence in this

jurisdiction for the practice of law; or

(2) hold out to the public or otherwise represent that the lawyer

is admitted to the practice of law in this jurisdiction.

(c) Except as authorized by this rule, a lawyer who is not admitted

to practice in this jurisdiction but who is admitted to practice in another

jurisdiction of the United States and not disbarred or suspended from

practice in any jurisdiction for disciplinary reasons or for medical

incapacity, may not provide legal services in this jurisdiction except when

providing services on an occasional basis in this jurisdiction that:

(1) are undertaken in association with a lawyer who is admitted to

practice in this jurisdiction and who actively participates in the matter; or

(2) are in, or reasonably related to, a pending or potential

proceeding before a tribunal in this or another jurisdiction, if the lawyer,

or a person the lawyer is assisting, is authorized by law or order to appear

in such proceeding or reasonably expects to be so authorized; or

(3) are in, or reasonably related to, a pending or potential

arbitration, mediation, or other alternative dispute resolution proceeding

in this or another jurisdiction, if the services arise out of, or are reasonably

related to, the lawyer's practice in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is

admitted to practice and are not services for which the forum requires pro

hac vice admission; or

(4) are not within subsections (c)(2) or (c)(3) and arise out of, or

are reasonably related to, the lawyer's practice in a jurisdiction in which

182

the lawyer is admitted to practice.

(d) A lawyer admitted to practice in another United States

jurisdiction or in a foreign jurisdiction, who is not disbarred or suspended

from practice in any jurisdiction for disciplinary reasons or medical

incapacity, may provide legal services through an office or other

systematic and continuous presence in this jurisdiction that:

(1) are provided to the lawyer's employer or its organizational

affiliates after compliance with SCR 10.03 (4) (f), and are not services

for which the forum requires pro hac vice admission; or

(2) are services that the lawyer is authorized to provide by federal

law or other law or other rule of this jurisdiction.

(e) A lawyer admitted to practice in another jurisdiction of the

United States or a foreign jurisdiction who provides legal services in this

jurisdiction pursuant to sub. (c) and (d) above shall consent to the

appointment of the Clerk of the Wisconsin Supreme Court as agent upon

whom service of process may be made for all actions against the lawyer

or the lawyer's firm that may arise out of the lawyer's participation in legal

matters in this jurisdiction.

WISCONSIN COMMITTEE COMMENT

See also SCR 10.03(4) (requirements for admission pro hac vice and registration of in-house

counsel).

This Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule differs from the Model Rule in that an attorney is not

precluded from seeking admission pro hac vice if the attorney is administratively suspended from

practice in a jurisdiction other than the attorney's primary jurisdiction of practice. An attorney must

not be suspended or disbarred in his or her primary jurisdiction of practice. Due to substantive and

numbering differences, special care should be taken in consulting the ABA Comment.

ABA COMMENT

[1] A lawyer may practice law only in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is authorized to

practice. A lawyer may be admitted to practice law in a jurisdiction on a regular basis or may be

authorized by court rule or order or by law to practice for a limited purpose or on a restricted basis.

Paragraph (a) applies to unauthorized practice of law by a lawyer, whether through the lawyer's direct

action or by the lawyer assisting another person. For example, a lawyer may not assist a person in

practicing law in violation of the rules governing professional conduct in that person's jurisdiction.

[2] The definition of the practice of law is established by law and varies from one jurisdiction

to another. Whatever the definition, limiting the practice of law to members of the bar protects the

public against rendition of legal services by unqualified persons. This Rule does not prohibit a lawyer

from employing the services of paraprofessionals and delegating functions to them, so long as the

lawyer supervises the delegated work and retains responsibility for their work. See Rule 5.3.

[3] A lawyer may provide professional advice and instruction to nonlawyers whose

employment requires knowledge of the law; for example, claims adjusters, employees of financial or

183

commercial institutions, social workers, accountants and persons employed in government agencies.

Lawyers also may assist independent nonlawyers, such as paraprofessionals, who are authorized by

the law of a jurisdiction to provide particular law-related services. In addition, a lawyer may counsel

nonlawyers who wish to proceed pro se.

[4] Other than as authorized by law or this Rule, a lawyer who is not admitted to practice

generally in this jurisdiction violates paragraph (b) (1) if the lawyer establishes an office or other

systematic and continuous presence in this jurisdiction for the practice of law. Presence may be

systematic and continuous even if the lawyer is not physically present here. Such a lawyer must not

hold out to the public or otherwise represent that the lawyer is admitted to practice law in this

jurisdiction. See also Rules 7.1(a) and 7.5(b).

[5] There are occasions in which a lawyer admitted to practice in another United States

jurisdiction, and not disbarred or suspended from practice in any jurisdiction, may provide legal

services on a temporary basis in this jurisdiction under circumstances that do not create an

unreasonable risk to the interests of their clients, the public or the courts. Paragraph (c) identifies four

such circumstances. The fact that conduct is not so identified does not imply that the conduct is or is

not authorized. With the exception of paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2), this Rule does not authorize a

lawyer to establish an office or other systematic and continuous presence in this jurisdiction without

being admitted to practice generally here.

[6] There is no single test to determine whether a lawyer's services are provided on a

"temporary basis" in this jurisdiction, and may therefore be permissible under paragraph (c). Services

may be "temporary" even though the lawyer provides services in this jurisdiction on a recurring basis,

or for an extended period of time, as when the lawyer is representing a client in a single lengthy

negotiation or litigation.

[7] Paragraphs (c) and (d) apply to lawyers who are admitted to practice law in any United

States jurisdiction, which includes the District of Columbia and any state, territory or commonwealth

of the United States. The word "admitted" in paragraph (c) contemplates that the lawyer is authorized

to practice in the jurisdiction in which the lawyer is admitted and excludes a lawyer who while

technically admitted is not authorized to practice, because, for example, the lawyer is on inactive status.

[8] Paragraph (c)(1) recognizes that the interests of clients and the public are protected if a

lawyer admitted only in another jurisdiction associates with a lawyer licensed to practice in this

jurisdiction. For this paragraph to apply, however, the lawyer admitted to practice in this jurisdiction

must actively participate in and share responsibility for the representation of the client.

[9] Lawyers not admitted to practice generally in a jurisdiction may be authorized by law or

order of a tribunal or an administrative agency to appear before the tribunal or agency. This authority

may be granted pursuant to formal rules governing admission pro hac vice or pursuant to informal

practice of the tribunal or agency. Under paragraph (c)(2), a lawyer does not violate this Rule when

the lawyer appears before a tribunal or agency pursuant to such authority. To the extent that a court

rule or other law of this jurisdiction requires a lawyer who is not admitted to practice in this jurisdiction

to obtain admission pro hac vice before appearing before a tribunal or administrative agency, this Rule

requires the lawyer to obtain that authority.

[10] Paragraph (c)(2) also provides that a lawyer rendering services in this jurisdiction on a

temporary basis does not violate this Rule when the lawyer engages in conduct in anticipation of a

proceeding or hearing in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is authorized to practice law or in which

the lawyer reasonably expects to be admitted pro hac vice. Examples of such conduct include meetings

with the client, interviews of potential witnesses, and the review of documents. Similarly, a lawyer

admitted only in another jurisdiction may engage in conduct temporarily in this jurisdiction in

connection with pending litigation in another jurisdiction in which the lawyer is or reasonably expects

to be authorized to appear, including taking depositions in this jurisdiction.

[11] When a lawyer has been or reasonably expects to be admitted to appear before a court

or administrative agency, paragraph (c)(2) also permits conduct by lawyers who are associated with

184

that lawyer in the matter, but who do not expect to appear before the court or administrative agency.

For example, subordinate lawyers may conduct research, review documents, and attend meetings with

witnesses in support of the lawyer responsible for the litigation.

[12] Paragraph (c)(3) permits a lawyer admitted to practice law in another jurisdiction to

perform services on a temporary basis in this jurisdiction if those services are in or reasonably related

to a pending or potential arbitration, mediation, or other alternative dispute resolution proceeding in

this or another jurisdiction, if the services arise out of or are reasonably related to the lawyer's practice

in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is admitted to practice. The lawyer, however, must obtain

admission pro hac vice in the case of a court-annexed arbitration or mediation or otherwise if court

rules or law so require.

[13] Paragraph (c)(4) permits a lawyer admitted in another jurisdiction to provide certain

legal services on a temporary basis in this jurisdiction that arise out of or are reasonably related to the

lawyer's practice in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is admitted but are not within paragraphs (c)(2)

or (c)(3). These services include both legal services and services that nonlawyers may perform but that

are considered the practice of law when performed by lawyers.

[14] Paragraphs (c)(3) and (c)(4) require that the services arise out of or be reasonably related

to the lawyer's practice in a jurisdiction in which the lawyer is admitted. A variety of factors evidence

such a relationship. The lawyer's client may have been previously represented by the lawyer, or may

be resident in or have substantial contacts with the jurisdiction in which the lawyer is admitted. The

matter, although involving other jurisdictions, may have a significant connection with that jurisdiction.

In other cases, significant aspects of the lawyer's work might be conducted in that jurisdiction or a

significant aspect of the matter may involve the law of that jurisdiction. The necessary relationship

might arise when the client's activities or the legal issues involve multiple jurisdictions, such as when

the officers of a multinational corporation survey potential business sites and seek the services of their

lawyer in assessing the relative merits of each. In addition, the services may draw on the lawyer's

recognized expertise developed through the regular practice of law on behalf of clients in matters

involving a particular body of federal, nationally-uniform, foreign, or international law. Lawyers

desiring to provide pro bono legal services on a temporary basis in a jurisdiction that has been affected

by a major disaster, but in which they are not otherwise authorized to practice law, as well as lawyers

from the affected jurisdiction who seek to practice law temporarily in another jurisdiction, but in which

they are not otherwise authorized to practice law, should consult the [Model Court Rule on Provision

of Legal Services Following Determination of Major Disaster].

[15] Paragraph (d) identifies two circumstances in which a lawyer who is admitted to practice

in another United States jurisdiction, and is not disbarred or suspended from practice in any

jurisdiction, may establish an office or other systematic and continuous presence in this jurisdiction

for the practice of law as well as provide legal services on a temporary basis. Except as provided in

paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2), a lawyer who is admitted to practice law in another jurisdiction and who

establishes an office or other systematic or continuous presence in this jurisdiction must become

admitted to practice law generally in this jurisdiction.

[16] Paragraph (d)(1) applies to a lawyer who is employed by a client to provide legal services

to the client or its organizational affiliates, i.e., entities that control, are controlled by, or are under

common control with the employer. This paragraph does not authorize the provision of personal legal

services to the employer's officers or employees. The paragraph applies to in-house corporate lawyers,

government lawyers and others who are employed to render legal services to the employer. The

lawyer's ability to represent the employer outside the jurisdiction in which the lawyer is licensed

generally serves the interests of the employer and does not create an unreasonable risk to the client and

others because the employer is well situated to assess the lawyer's qualifications and the quality of the

lawyer's work.

[17] If an employed lawyer establishes an office or other systematic presence in this

jurisdiction for the purpose of rendering legal services to the employer, the lawyer may be subject to

185

registration or other requirements, including assessments for client protection funds and mandatory

continuing legal education.

[18] Paragraph (d)(2) recognizes that a lawyer may provide legal services in a jurisdiction in

which the lawyer is not licensed when authorized to do so by federal or other law, which includes

statute, court rule, executive regulation or judicial precedent. See, e.g., The ABA Model Rule on

Practice Pending Admission.

[19] A lawyer who practices law in this jurisdiction pursuant to paragraphs (c) or (d) or

otherwise is subject to the disciplinary authority of this jurisdiction. See Rule 8.5(a).

[20] In some circumstances, a lawyer who practices law in this jurisdiction pursuant to

paragraphs (c) or (d) may have to inform the client that the lawyer is not licensed to practice law in

this jurisdiction. For example, that may be required when the representation occurs primarily in this

jurisdiction and requires knowledge of the law of this jurisdiction. See Rule 1.4(b).

[21] Paragraphs (c) and (d) do not authorize communications advertising legal services in this

jurisdiction by lawyers who are admitted to practice in other jurisdictions. Whether and how lawyers

may communicate the availability of their services in this jurisdiction is governed by Rules 7.1 to 7.5.

WISCONSIN COMMENT

Lawyers desiring to provide pro bono legal services on a temporary basis in the State of Wisconsin

when it has been affected by a major disaster, when they are not otherwise authorized to practice

law in the State of Wisconsin, as well as lawyers from a jurisdiction affected by a major disaster

who seek to practice law temporarily in this jurisdiction, but who are not otherwise authorized to

practice law in the State of Wisconsin, should consult Supreme Court Rule 23.03.

SCR 20:5.6 Restrictions on right to practice

A lawyer shall not participate in offering or making:

(a) a partnership, shareholders, operating, employment, or other

similar type of agreement that restricts the right of a lawyer to practice

after termination of the relationship, except an agreement concerning

benefits upon retirement; or

(b) an agreement in which a restriction on the lawyer's right to

practice is part of the settlement of a client controversy.

ABA COMMENT

[1] An agreement restricting the right of lawyers to practice after leaving a firm not only

limits their professional autonomy but also limits the freedom of clients to choose a lawyer. Paragraph

(a) prohibits such agreements except for restrictions incident to provisions concerning retirement

benefits for service with the firm.

[2] Paragraph (b) prohibits a lawyer from agreeing not to represent other persons in

connection with settling a claim on behalf of a client.

[3] This Rule does not apply to prohibit restrictions that may be included in the terms of the

sale of a law practice pursuant to Rule 1.17.

SCR 20:5.7 Limited liability legal practice

(a)(1) A lawyer may be a member of a law firm that is organized

186

as a limited liability organization solely to render professional legal

services under the laws of this state, including chs. 178 and 183 and

subch. XIX of ch. 180. The lawyer may practice in or as a limited liability

organization if the lawyer is otherwise authorized to practice law in this

state and the organization is registered under sub. (b).

(2) Nothing in this rule or the laws under which the lawyer or law

firm is organized shall relieve a lawyer from personal liability for any

acts, errors or omissions of the lawyer arising out of the performance of

professional services.

(b) A lawyer or law firm that is organized as a limited liability

organization shall file an annual registration with the state bar of

Wisconsin in a form and with a filing fee that shall be determined by the

state bar. The annual registration shall be signed by a lawyer who is

licensed to practice law in this state and who holds an ownership interest

in the organization seeking to register under this rule. The annual

registration shall include all of the following:

(1) The name and address of the organization.

(2) The names, residence addresses, states or jurisdictions where

licensed to practice law, and attorney registration numbers of the lawyers

in the organization and their ownership interest in the organization.

(3) A representation that at the time of the filing each lawyer in the

organization is in good standing in this state or, if licensed to practice law

elsewhere, in the states or jurisdictions in which he or she is licensed.

(4) A certificate of insurance issued by an insurance carrier

certifying that it has issued to the organization a professional liability

policy to the organization as provided in sub. (bm).

(5) Such other information as may be required from time to time

by the state bar of Wisconsin.

(bm) The professional liability policy under sub. (b)(4) shall

identify the name of the professional liability carrier, the policy number,

the expiration date and the limits and deductible. Such professional

liability insurance shall provide not less than the following limits of

liability:

(1) For a firm composed of 1 to 3 lawyers, $100,000 of combined

indemnity and defense cost coverage per claim, with a $300,000

aggregate combined indemnity and defense cost coverage amount per

policy period.

(2) For a firm composed of 4 to 6 lawyers, $250,000 of combined

indemnity and defense cost coverage per claim, with $750,000 aggregate

combined indemnity and defense cost coverage amount per policy period.

187

(3) For a firm composed of 7 to 14 lawyers, $500,000 of combined

indemnity and defense cost coverage per claim, with $1,000,000

aggregate combined indemnity and defense cost coverage amount per

policy period.

(4) For a firm composed of 15 to 30 lawyers, $1,000,000 of

combined indemnity and defense cost coverage per claim, with

$2,000,000 aggregate combined indemnity and defense cost coverage

amount per policy period.

(5) For a firm composed of 31 to 50 lawyers, $4,000,000 of

combined indemnity and defense cost coverage per claim, with

$4,000,000 aggregate combined indemnity and defense cost coverage

amount per policy period.

(6) For a firm composed of 51 or more lawyers, $10,000,000 of

combined indemnity and defense cost coverage per claim, with

$10,000,000 aggregate combined indemnity and defense cost coverage

amount per policy period.

(c) Nothing in this rule or the laws under which a lawyer or law

firm is organized shall diminish a lawyer's or law firm's obligations or

responsibilities under any provisions of this chapter.

(d) A law firm that is organized as a limited liability organization

under the laws of any other state or jurisdiction or of the United States

solely for the purpose of rendering professional legal services that is

authorized to do business in Wisconsin and that has at least one lawyer

licensed to practice law in Wisconsin and who also has an ownership

interest in the firm may register under this rule by complying with the

provisions of sub. (b).

(e) A lawyer or law firm that is organized as a limited liability

organization shall do all of the following:

(1) Include a written designation of the limited liability structure

as part of its name.

(2) Provide to clients and potential clients in writing a plainEnglish summary of the features of the limited liability law under which

it is organized and the applicable provisions of this chapter.

WISCONSIN COMMITTEE COMMENT

This Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule has no counterpart in the Model Rules. Model Rule 5.7,

concerning law-related services, is not part of these rules.

PUBLIC SERVICE

188

SCR 20:5.8 Responsibilities Regarding Law-Related Services

(a) A lawyer shall be subject to the Rules of Professional Conduct

with respect to the provision of law-related services, as defined in

paragraph (b), if the law-related services are provided:

(1) by the lawyer in circumstances that are not distinct from the

lawyer's provision of legal services to clients; or

(2) in other circumstances by an entity controlled by the lawyer

individually or with others if the lawyer fails to take reasonable measures

to assure that a person obtaining the law-related services knows that the

services are not legal services and that the protections of the client-lawyer

relationship do not exist.

(b) The term "law-related services" denotes services that might

reasonably be performed in conjunction with and in substance are related

to the provision of legal services, and that are not prohibited as

unauthorized practice of law when provided by a nonlawyer.

ABA COMMENT

[1] When a lawyer performs law-related services or controls an organization that does so,

there exists the potential for ethical problems. Principal among these is the possibility that the person

for whom the law-related services are performed fails to understand that the services may not carry

with them the protections normally afforded as part of the client-lawyer relationship. The recipient of

the law-related services may expect, for example, that the protection of client confidences, prohibitions

against representation of persons with conflicting interests, and obligations of a lawyer to maintain

professional independence apply to the provision of law-related services when that may not be the

case.

[2] Rule 5.7 applies to the provision of law-related services by a lawyer even when the lawyer

does not provide any legal services to the person for whom the law-related services are performed and

whether the law-related services are performed through a law firm or a separate entity. The Rule

identifies the circumstances in which all of the Rules of Professional Conduct apply to the provision

of law-related services. Even when those circumstances do not exist, however, the conduct of a lawyer

involved in the provision of law-related services is subject to those Rules that apply generally to lawyer

conduct, regardless of whether the conduct involves the provision of legal services. See, e.g., Rule 8.4.

[3] When law-related services are provided by a lawyer under circumstances that are not

distinct from the lawyer's provision of legal services to clients, the lawyer in providing the law-related

services must adhere to the requirements of the Rules of Professional Conduct as provided in paragraph

(a)(1). Even when the law-related and legal services are provided in circumstances that are distinct

from each other, for example through separate entities or different support staff within the law firm,

the Rules of Professional Conduct apply to the lawyer as provided in paragraph (a)(2) unless the lawyer

takes reasonable measures to assure that the recipient of the law-related services knows that the

services are not legal services and that the protections of the client-lawyer relationship do not apply.

[4] Law-related services also may be provided through an entity that is distinct from that

through which the lawyer provides legal services. If the lawyer individually or with others has control

of such an entity's operations, the Rule requires the lawyer to take reasonable measures to assure that

each person using the services of the entity knows that the services provided by the entity are not legal

189

services and that the Rules of Professional Conduct that relate to the client-lawyer relationship do not

apply. A lawyer's control of an entity extends to the ability to direct its operation. Whether a lawyer

has such control will depend upon the circumstances of the particular case.

[5] When a client-lawyer relationship exists with a person who is referred by a lawyer to a

separate law-related service entity controlled by the lawyer, individually or with others, the lawyer

must comply with Rule 1.8(a).

[6] In taking the reasonable measures referred to in paragraph (a)(2) to assure that a person

using law-related services understands the practical effect or significance of the inapplicability of the

Rules of Professional Conduct, the lawyer should communicate to the person receiving the law-related

services, in a manner sufficient to assure that the person understands the significance of the fact, that

the relationship of the person to the business entity will not be a client-lawyer relationship. The

communication should be made before entering into an agreement for provision of or providing lawrelated services, and preferably should be in writing.

[7] The burden is upon the lawyer to show that the lawyer has taken reasonable measures

under the circumstances to communicate the desired understanding. For instance, a sophisticated user

of law-related services, such as a publicly held corporation, may require a lesser explanation than

someone unaccustomed to making distinctions between legal services and law-related services, such

as an individual seeking tax advice from a lawyer-accountant or investigative services in connection

with a lawsuit.

[8] Regardless of the sophistication of potential recipients of law-related services, a lawyer

should take special care to keep separate the provision of law-related and legal services in order to

minimize the risk that the recipient will assume that the law-related services are legal services. The

risk of such confusion is especially acute when the lawyer renders both types of services with respect

to the same matter. Under some circumstances the legal and law-related services may be so closely

entwined that they cannot be distinguished from each other, and the requirement of disclosure and

consultation imposed by paragraph (a)(2) of the Rule cannot be met. In such a case a lawyer will be

responsible for assuring that both the lawyer's conduct and, to the extent required by Rule 5.3, that of

nonlawyer employees in the distinct entity that the lawyer controls complies in all respects with the

Rules of Professional Conduct.

[9] A broad range of economic and other interests of clients may be served by lawyers

engaging in the delivery of law-related services. Examples of law-related services include providing

title insurance, financial planning, accounting, trust services, real estate counseling, legislative

lobbying, economic analysis, social work, psychological counseling, tax preparation, and patent,

medical or environmental consulting.

[10] When a lawyer is obliged to accord the recipients of such services the protections of

those Rules that apply to the client-lawyer relationship, the lawyer must take special care to heed the

proscriptions of the Rules addressing conflict of interest (Rules 1.7 through 1.11, especially Rules

1.7(a)(2) and 1.8(a), (b) and (f)), and to scrupulously adhere to the requirements of Rule 1.6 relating

to disclosure of confidential information. The promotion of the law-related services must also in all

respects comply with Rules 7.1 through 7.3, dealing with advertising and solicitation. In that regard,

lawyers should take special care to identify the obligations that may be imposed as a result of a

jurisdiction's decisional law.

[11] When the full protections of all of the Rules of Professional Conduct do not apply to the

provision of law-related services, principles of law external to the Rules, for example, the law of

principal and agent, govern the legal duties owed to those receiving the services. Those other legal

principles may establish a different degree of protection for the recipient with respect to confidentiality

of information, conflicts of interest and permissible business relationships with clients. See also Rule

8.4 (Misconduct).

190

SCR 20:6.1 Voluntary pro bono publico service

Every lawyer has a professional responsibility to provide legal

services to those unable to pay. A lawyer should aspire to render at least

50 hours of pro bono publico legal services per year. In fulfilling this

responsibility the lawyer should:

(a) provide a substantial majority of the 50 hours of legal services

without fee or expectation of fee to:

(1) persons of limited means or

(2) charitable, religious, civic, community, governmental and

educational organizations in matters that are designed primarily to

address the needs of persons of limited means; and

(b) provide any additional services through:

(1) delivery of legal services at no fee or substantially reduced fee

to individuals, groups or organizations seeking to secure or protect civil

rights, civil liberties or public rights, or charitable, religious, civic,

community, governmental and educational organizations in matters in

furtherance of their organizational purposes, where the payment of

standard legal fees would significantly deplete the organization's

economic resources or would be otherwise inappropriate;

(2) delivery of legal services at a substantially reduced fee to

persons of limited means; or

(3) participation in activities for improving the law, the legal

system or the legal profession.

In addition, a lawyer should voluntarily contribute financial

support to organizations that provide legal services to persons of limited

means.

ABA COMMENT

[1] Every lawyer, regardless of professional prominence or professional work load, has a

responsibility to provide legal services to those unable to pay, and personal involvement in the

problems of the disadvantaged can be one of the most rewarding experiences in the life of a lawyer.

The American Bar Association urges all lawyers to provide a minimum of 50 hours of pro bono

services annually. States, however, may decide to choose a higher or lower number of hours of annual

service (which may be expressed as a percentage of a lawyer's professional time) depending upon local

needs and local conditions. It is recognized that in some years a lawyer may render greater or fewer

hours than the annual standard specified, but during the course of his or her legal career, each lawyer

should render on average per year, the number of hours set forth in this Rule. Services can be performed

in civil matters or in criminal or quasi—criminal matters for which there is no government obligation

to provide funds for legal representation, such as post—conviction death penalty appeal cases.

[2] Paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) recognize the critical need for legal services that exists among

persons of limited means by providing that a substantial majority of the legal services rendered

annually to the disadvantaged be furnished without fee or expectation of fee. Legal services under

191

these paragraphs consist of a full range of activities, including individual and class representation, the

provision of legal advice, legislative lobbying, administrative rule making and the provision of free

training or mentoring to those who represent persons of limited means. The variety of these activities

should facilitate participation by government lawyers, even when restrictions exist on their engaging

in the outside practice of law.

[3] Persons eligible for legal services under paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) are those who qualify

for participation in programs funded by the Legal Services Corporation and those whose incomes and

financial resources are slightly above the guidelines utilized by such programs but nevertheless, cannot

afford counsel. Legal services can be rendered to individuals or to organizations such as homeless

shelters, battered women's centers and food pantries that serve those of limited means. The term

"governmental organizations" includes, but is not limited to, public protection programs and sections

of governmental or public sector agencies.

[4] Because service must be provided without fee or expectation of fee, the intent of the

lawyer to render free legal services is essential for the work performed to fall within the meaning of

paragraphs (a)(1) and (2). Accordingly, services rendered cannot be considered pro bono if an

anticipated fee is uncollected, but the award of statutory attorneys' fees in a case originally accepted as

pro bono would not disqualify such services from inclusion under this section. Lawyers who do receive

fees in such cases are encouraged to contribute an appropriate portion of such fees to organizations or

projects that benefit persons of limited means.

[5] While it is possible for a lawyer to fulfill the annual responsibility to perform pro bono

services exclusively through activities described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2), to the extent that any

hours of service remained unfulfilled, the remaining commitment can be met in a variety of ways as

set forth in paragraph (b). Constitutional, statutory or regulatory restrictions may prohibit or impede

government and public sector lawyers and judges from performing the pro bono services outlined in

paragraphs (a)(1) and (2). Accordingly, where those restrictions apply, government and public sector

lawyers and judges may fulfill their pro bono responsibility by performing services outlined in

paragraph (b).

[6] Paragraph (b)(1) includes the provision of certain types of legal services to those whose

incomes and financial resources place them above limited means. It also permits the pro bono lawyer

to accept a substantially reduced fee for services. Examples of the types of issues that may be addressed

under this paragraph include First Amendment claims, Title VII claims and environmental protection

claims. Additionally, a wide range of organizations may be represented, including social service,

medical research, cultural and religious groups.

[7] Paragraph (b)(2) covers instances in which lawyers agree to and receive a modest fee for

furnishing legal services to persons of limited means. Participation in judicare programs and

acceptance of court appointments in which the fee is substantially below a lawyer's usual rate are

encouraged under this section.

[8] Paragraph (b)(3) recognizes the value of lawyers engaging in activities that improve the

law, the legal system or the legal profession. Serving on bar association committees, serving on boards

of pro bono or legal services programs, taking part in Law Day activities, acting as a continuing legal

education instructor, a mediator or an arbitrator and engaging in legislative lobbying to improve the

law, the legal system or the profession are a few examples of the many activities that fall within this

paragraph.

[9] Because the provision of pro bono services is a professional responsibility, it is the

individual ethical commitment of each lawyer. Nevertheless, there may be times when it is not feasible

for a lawyer to engage in pro bono services. At such times a lawyer may discharge the pro bono

responsibility by providing financial support to organizations providing free legal services to persons

of limited means. Such financial support should be reasonably equivalent to the value of the hours of

service that would have otherwise been provided. In addition, at times it may be more feasible to satisfy

the pro bono responsibility collectively, as by a firm's aggregate pro bono activities.

192

[10] Because the efforts of individual lawyers are not enough to meet the need for free legal

services that exists among persons of limited means, the government and the profession have instituted

additional programs to provide those services. Every lawyer should financially support such programs,

in addition to either providing direct pro bono services or making financial contributions when pro

bono service is not feasible.

[11] Law firms should act reasonably to enable and encourage all lawyers in the firm to

provide the pro bono legal services called for by this Rule.

[12] The responsibility set forth in this Rule is not intended to be enforced through

disciplinary process.

SCR 20:6.2 Accepting appointments

A lawyer shall not seek to avoid appointment by a tribunal to

represent a person except for good cause, such as:

(a) representing the client is likely to result in violation of the Rules

of Professional Conduct or other law;

(b) representing the client is likely to result in an unreasonable

financial burden on the lawyer; or

(c) the client or the cause is so repugnant to the lawyer as to be

likely to impair the client—lawyer relationship or the lawyer's ability to

represent the client.

ABA COMMENT

[1] A lawyer ordinarily is not obliged to accept a client whose character or cause the lawyer

regards as repugnant. The lawyer's freedom to select clients is, however, qualified. All lawyers have a

responsibility to assist in providing pro bono publico service. See Rule 6.1. An individual lawyer

fulfills this responsibility by accepting a fair share of unpopular matters or indigent or unpopular

clients. A lawyer may also be subject to appointment by a court to serve unpopular clients or persons

unable to afford legal services.

Appointed Counsel

[2] For good cause a lawyer may seek to decline an appointment to represent a person who

cannot afford to retain counsel or whose cause is unpopular. Good cause exists if the lawyer could not

handle the matter competently, see Rule 1.1, or if undertaking the representation would result in an

improper conflict of interest, for example, when the client or the cause is so repugnant to the lawyer

as to be likely to impair the client-lawyer relationship or the lawyer's ability to represent the client. A

lawyer may also seek to decline an appointment if acceptance would be unreasonably burdensome, for

example, when it would impose a financial sacrifice so great as to be unjust.

[3] An appointed lawyer has the same obligations to the client as retained counsel, including

the obligations of loyalty and confidentiality, and is subject to the same limitations on the client-lawyer

relationship, such as the obligation to refrain from assisting the client in violation of the Rules.

SCR 20:6.3 Membership in legal services organization

A lawyer may serve as a director, officer or member of a legal

193

services organization, apart from the law firm in which the lawyer

practices, notwithstanding that the organization serves persons having

interests adverse to a client of the lawyer. The lawyer shall not knowingly

participate in a decision or action of the organization:

(a) if participating in the decision would be incompatible with the

lawyer's obligations to a client under SCR 20:1.7; or

(b) where the decision could have a material adverse effect on the

representation of a client of the organization whose interests are adverse

to a client of the lawyer.

ABA COMMENT

[1] Lawyers should be encouraged to support and participate in legal service organizations.

A lawyer who is an officer or a member of such an organization does not thereby have a client-lawyer

relationship with persons served by the organization. However, there is potential conflict between the

interests of such persons and the interests of the lawyer's clients. If the possibility of such conflict

disqualified a lawyer from serving on the board of a legal services organization, the profession's

involvement in such organizations would be severely curtailed.

[2] It may be necessary in appropriate cases to reassure a client of the organization that the

representation will not be affected by conflicting loyalties of a member of the board. Established,

written policies in this respect can enhance the credibility of such assurances.

SCR 20:6.4 Law reform activities affecting client interests

A lawyer may serve as a director, officer or member of an

organization involved in reform of the law or its administration

notwithstanding that the reform may affect the interests of a client of the

lawyer. When the lawyer knows that the interests of a client may be

materially benefited by a decision in which the lawyer participates, the

lawyer shall disclose that fact but need not identify the client.

ABA COMMENT

[1] Lawyers involved in organizations seeking law reform generally do not have a client—

lawyer relationship with the organization. Otherwise, it might follow that a lawyer could not be

involved in a bar association law reform program that might indirectly affect a client. See also Rule

1.2(b). For example, a lawyer specializing in antitrust litigation might be regarded as disqualified from

participating in drafting revisions of rules governing that subject. In determining the nature and scope

of participation in such activities, a lawyer should be mindful of obligations to clients under other

Rules, particularly Rule 1.7. A lawyer is professionally obligated to protect the integrity of the program

by making an appropriate disclosure within the organization when the lawyer knows a private client

might be materially benefited.

194

SCR 20:6.5

services programs

Nonprofit and court-annexed limited legal

(a) A lawyer who, under the auspices of a program sponsored by a

nonprofit organization, a bar association, an accredited law school, or a

court, provides short-term limited legal services to a client without

expectation by either the lawyer or the client that the lawyer will provide

continuing representation in the matter:

(1) is subject to SCR 20:1.7 and SCR 20:1.9(a) only if the lawyer

knows that the representation of the client involves a conflict of interest;

and

(2) is subject to SCR 20:1.10 only if the lawyer knows that another

lawyer associated with the lawyer in a law firm is disqualified by SCR

20:1.7 or SCR 20:1.9(a) with respect to the matter.

(b) Except as provided in par. (a)(2), SCR 20:1.10 is inapplicable

to a representation governed by this rule.

WISCONSIN COMMITTEE COMMENT

Unlike the Model Rule, paragraph (a) expressly provides coverage for programs sponsored

by bar associations and accredited law schools.

ABA COMMENT

[1] Legal services organizations, courts and various nonprofit organizations have established

programs through which lawyers provide short-term limited legal services—such as advice or the

completion of legal forms—that will assist persons to address their legal problems without further

representation by a lawyer. In these programs, such as legal-advice hotlines, advice-only clinics or pro

se counseling programs, a client-lawyer relationship is established, but there is no expectation that the

lawyer's representation of the client will continue beyond the limited consultation. Such programs are

normally operated under circumstances in which it is not feasible for a lawyer to systematically screen

for conflicts of interest as is generally required before undertaking a representation. See, e.g., Rules

1.7, 1.9 and 1.10.

[2] A lawyer who provides short-term limited legal services pursuant to this Rule must secure

the client's informed consent to the limited scope of the representation. See Rule 1.2(c). If a short-term

limited representation would not be reasonable under the circumstances, the lawyer may offer advice

to the client but must also advise the client of the need for further assistance of counsel. Except as

provided in this Rule, the Rules of Professional Conduct, including Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c), are applicable

to the limited representation.

[3] Because a lawyer who is representing a client in the circumstances addressed by this Rule

ordinarily is not able to check systematically for conflicts of interest, paragraph (a) requires compliance

with Rules 1.7 or 1.9(a) only if the lawyer knows that the representation presents a conflict of interest

for the lawyer, and with Rule 1.10 only if the lawyer knows that another lawyer in the lawyer's firm is

disqualified by Rules 1.7 or 1.9(a) in the matter.

[4] Because the limited nature of the services significantly reduces the risk of conflicts of

interest with other matters being handled by the lawyer's firm, paragraph (b) provides that Rule 1.10

195

is inapplicable to a representation governed by this Rule except as provided by paragraph (a)(2).

Paragraph (a)(2) requires the participating lawyer to comply with Rule 1.10 when the lawyer knows

that the lawyer's firm is disqualified by Rules 1.7 or 1.9(a). By virtue of paragraph (b), however, a

lawyer's participation in a short-term limited legal services program will not preclude the lawyer's firm

from undertaking or continuing the representation of a client with interests adverse to a client being

represented under the program's auspices. Nor will the personal disqualification of a lawyer

participating in the program be imputed to other lawyers participating in the program.

[5] If, after commencing a short-term limited representation in accordance with this Rule, a

lawyer undertakes to represent the client in the matter on an ongoing basis, Rules 1.7, 1.9(a) and 1.10

become applicable.

INFORMATION ABOUT LEGAL SERVICES

SCR 20:7.1 Communications concerning a lawyer's services

A lawyer shall not make a false or misleading communication

about the lawyer or the lawyer's services. A communication is false or

misleading if it:

(a) contains a material misrepresentation of fact or law, or omits a

fact necessary to make the statement considered as a whole not materially

misleading;

(b) is likely to create an unjustified expectation about results the

lawyer can achieve, or states or implies that the lawyer can achieve results

by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law; or

(c) compares the lawyer's services with other lawyers' services,

unless the comparison can be factually substantiated; or

(d) contains any paid testimonial about, or paid endorsement of,

the lawyer without identifying the fact that payment has been made or, if

the testimonial or endorsement is not made by an actual client, without

identifying that fact.

WISCONSIN COMMITTEE COMMENT

Paragraphs (b) through (d) of the Wisconsin Supreme Court Rule are not contained in the

Model Rule.

ABA COMMENT

[1] This Rule governs all communications about a lawyer's services, including advertising

permitted by Rule 7.2. Whatever means are used to make known a lawyer's services, statements about

them must be truthful.

[2] Truthful statements that are misleading are also prohibited by this Rule. A truthful

statement is misleading if it omits a fact necessary to make the lawyer's communication considered as

a whole not materially misleading. A truthful statement is also misleading if there is a substantial

196

likelihood that it will lead a reasonable person to formulate a specific conclusion about the lawyer or

the lawyer's services for which there is no reasonable factual foundation.

[3] An advertisement that truthfully reports a lawyer's achievements on behalf of clients or

former clients may be misleading if presented so as to lead a reasonable person to form an unjustified

expectation that the same results could be obtained for other clients in similar matters without reference

to the specific factual and legal circumstances of each client's case. Similarly, an unsubstantiated

comparison of the lawyer's services or fees with the services or fees of other lawyers may be misleading

if presented with such specificity as would lead a reasonable person to conclude that the comparison

can be substantiated. The inclusion of an appropriate disclaimer or qualifying language may preclude

a finding that a statement is likely to create unjustified expectations or otherwise mislead the public.

[4] See also Rule 8.4(e) for the prohibition against stating or implying an ability to influence

improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of

Professional Conduct or other law.

SCR 20:7.2 Advertising

(a) Subject to the requirements of SCR 20:7.1 and SCR 20:7.3, a

lawyer may advertise services through written, recorded or electronic

communication, including public media.

(b) A lawyer shall not give anything of value to a person for

recommending the lawyer's services, except that a lawyer may:

(1) pay the reasonable cost of advertisements or communications

permitted by this rule;

(2) pay the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit

or qualified lawyer referral service. A qualified lawyer referral service is

a lawyer referral service that has been approved by an appropriate

regulatory authority;

(3) pay for a law practice in accordance with SCR 20:1.17; and

(4) refer clients to another lawyer or nonlawyer professional

pursuant to an agreement not otherwise prohibited under these rules that

provides for the other person to refer clients or customers to the lawyer,

if

(i) the reciprocal referral arrangement is not exclusive;

(ii) the client gives informed consent;

(iii) there is no interference with the lawyer's independence

of professional judgment or with the client-lawyer relationship; and

(iv) information relating to representation of a client is

protected as required by SCR 20:1.6.

(c) Any communication made pursuant to this rule shall include

the name and office address of at least one lawyer or law firm responsible

for its content.

197

WISCONSIN COMMITTEE COMMENT

Paragraph (b)(4) differs from the Model Rule by requiring additional safeguards consistent

with those found in SCR 20:1.8(f). Lawyers should consider the "fee-splitting" provisions contained

in SCR 20:5.4 when considering their obligations under this provision.

ABA COMMENT

[1] To assist the public in learning about and obtaining legal services, lawyers should be

allowed to make known their services not only through reputation but also through organized

information campaigns in the form of advertising. Advertising involves an active quest for clients,

contrary to the tradition that a lawyer should not seek clientele. However, the public's need to know

about legal services can be fulfilled in part through advertising. This need is particularly acute in the

case of persons of moderate means who have not made extensive use of legal services. The interest in

expanding public information about legal services ought to prevail over considerations of tradition.

Nevertheless, advertising by lawyers entails the risk of practices that are misleading or overreaching.

[2] This Rule permits public dissemination of information concerning a lawyer's name or firm

name, address, email address, website, and telephone number; the kinds of services the lawyer will

undertake; the basis on which the lawyer's fees are determined, including prices for specific services

and payment and credit arrangements; a lawyer's foreign language ability; names of references and,

with their consent, names of clients regularly represented; and other information that might invite the

attention of those seeking legal assistance.

[3] Questions of effectiveness and taste in advertising are matters of speculation and

subjective judgment. Some jurisdictions have had extensive prohibitions against television and other

forms of advertising, against advertising going beyond specified facts about a lawyer, or against

"undignified" advertising. Television, the Internet, and other forms of electronic communication are

the most powerful media for getting information to the public, particularly persons of low and

moderate income; prohibiting television advertising, therefore, would impede the flow of information

about legal services to many sectors of the public. Limiting the information that may be advertised has

a similar effect and assumes that the bar can accurately forecast the kind of information that the public

would regard as relevant. But see Rule 7.3(a) for the prohibition against a solicitation through a realtime electronic exchange initiated by the lawyer.

[4] Neither this Rule nor Rule 7.3 prohibits communications authorized by law, such as notice

to members of a class in class action litigation.

Paying Others to Recommend a Lawyer

[5] Except as permitted under paragraphs (b) (1) – (4), lawyers are not permitted to pay others

for recommending the lawyer's services or for channeling professional work in a manner that violates

Rule 7.3. A communication contains a recommendation if it endorses or vouches for a lawyer's

credentials, abilities, competence, character, or other professional qualities. Paragraph (b)(1), however,

allows a lawyer to pay for advertising and communications permitted by this Rule, including the costs

of print directory listings, on-line directory listings, newspaper ads, television and radio airtime,

domain-name registrations, sponsorship fees, Internet-based advertisements, and group advertising. A

lawyer may compensate employees, agents and vendors who are engaged to provide marketing or

client-development services, such as publicists, public-relations personnel, business-development staff

and website designers. Moreover, a lawyer may pay others for generating client leads, such as Internetbased client leads, as long as the lead generator does not recommend the lawyer, any payment to the

lead generator is consistent with Rules 1.5(e) (division of fees) and 5.4 (professional independence of

the lawyer), and the lead generator's communications are consistent with Rule 7.1 (communications

concerning a lawyer's services). To comply with Rule 7.1, a lawyer must not pay a lead generator that

198

states, implies, or creates a reasonable impression that it is recommending the lawyer, is making the

referral without payment from the lawyer, or has analyzed a person's legal problems when determining

which lawyer should receive the referral. See also Rule 5.3 duties of lawyers and law firms with respect

to the conduct of nonlawyers; Rule 8.4(a) (duty to avoid violating the Rules through the acts of

another).

[6] A lawyer may pay the usual charges of a legal service plan or a not-for-profit or qualified

lawyer referral service. A legal service plan is a prepaid or group legal service plan or a similar delivery

system that assists people who seek to secure legal representation. A lawyer referral service, on the

other hand, is any organization that holds itself out to the public as a lawyer referra

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.