chevron-down Created with Sketch Beta.

Model Rule 1.0

Reporter's Explanation of Changes


The Commission recommends removing the Terminology section from the introductory sections of the Rules and putting it in a new Rule 1.0. The purpose of this change is to give the defined terms greater prominence and to permit the use of Comments to further explicate some of the provisions.

1. Delete "consult" or "consultation"

The Commission recommends deletion of the term "consent after consultation" in favor of "informed consent," which is defined in paragraph (e). This change is being made throughout the Rules. No change in substance is intended.

2. Paragraph (b): "Confirmed in writing"

The Commission has proposed requiring a lawyer to obtain the informed consent of a client or other person, "confirmed in writing," in some circumstances. See, e.g., Rule 1.7. The term "writing" is defined in paragraph (n).

3. Paragraph (c): "Firm" or "law firm"

These changes conform the definition to the changes made in the Comment to Rule 1.10. The Commission is also recommending that the material presently in the Rule 1.10 Comment be moved to the Comment under this Rule. See Comments [2] - [4]. The phrase "including the government" has been added to Comment [3] to clarify that legal departments of government entities are included within the definition of "firm." The reference to "other association authorized to practice law" was added to encompass lawyers practicing in limited liability entities. No change in substance is intended.

4. Paragraph (d): Clarify that "fraud" refers to conduct characterized as fraudulent under other applicable law

The present definition is ambiguous because it does not clearly state whether, in addition to the intent to deceive, the conduct must be fraudulent under applicable substantive or procedural law. In other words, it is possible that conduct might be considered "fraudulent" merely because it involves an intention to deceive, even if it does not violate any other law. The Commission recommends clarifying that the conduct must be fraudulent under applicable substantive or procedural law.

5. Paragraph (e): "Informed consent"

The Commission recommends that throughout the Rules the phrase "consent after consultation" be replaced with "gives informed consent." The Commission believes that "consultation" is a term that is not well understood and does not sufficiently indicate the extent to which clients must be given adequate information and explanation in order to make reasonably informed decisions. The term "informed consent," which is familiar from its use in other contexts, is more likely to convey to lawyers what is required under the Rules. No change in substance is intended.

6. Paragraph (g): "Partner": Added reference to "member of an association authorized to practice law"

As with the change to paragraph (c), this reference was added to encompass lawyers practicing in limited liability entities.

7. Paragraph (k): "Screened"

The current Model Rules do not impute conflicts of interest in certain situations when the personally disqualified lawyer is screened from any participation in the matter. See Rules 1.11(b) (former government lawyers) and 1.12(c)(1) (former judges). The Commission is proposing similar treatment of other situations involving a conflict of interest on the part of one lawyer in a firm. See Rules 1.12(c)(1) (former third-party neutrals) and 1.18(d)(1) (discussions with prospective clients). The Commission is recommending that the requirements of an effective screen be set forth in this paragraph and in the accompanying Comments.

8. Paragraph (m): "Tribunal"

This term was not previously defined. The Commission recommends including a definition and including not only courts but also binding arbitration and legislative bodies, administrative agencies or other bodies acting in an adjudicative capacity.

9. Paragraph (n): "Writing" or "written"

Given the Commission's recommendation that writings be required in more circumstances, it also recommends that the term be defined and that the definition include tangible or electronic records. With respect to electronic records, the paragraph provides a definition of "signed" that includes methods intended as the equivalent of a traditional signature. The electronic signature provisions are modeled on the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act.


[1] This new Comment was added to clarify that if it is not feasible to obtain or transmit a writing at the time a person gives informed consent, a lawyer may undertake or continue representation based on the oral informed consent, so long as the writing is obtained or transmitted within a reasonable time thereafter.

[2] This paragraph was taken from the Comment to Rule 1.10. It is unchanged, except for the addition of a reference to paragraph (c).

[3] This paragraph was taken from the Comment to Rule 1.10. The only change is stylistic, and no substantive change is intended.

[4] This paragraph was taken from the Comment to Rule 1.10. The Commission concluded that the current Comment is confusing. The revision is intended to clarify that organizational structure will determine whether the entire organization or different components will constitute a firm or firms for purposes of these Rules.

[5] Under applicable substantive law, "fraud" may not be actionable unless someone relied on a misrepresentation or failure to inform and consequently suffered damages. This paragraph makes it clear that reliance is not required for purposes of the disciplinary rules, which focus entirely on the nature of the conduct in question.

[6] This new Comment provides cross-references to Rules requiring the lawyer to obtain the informed consent of the client or another person within the meaning of this Rule. It also explains the requirements of lawyer communication under the Rule.

[7] This new Comment explains what is required in order to constitute a manifestation of consent by the client.

[8] - [10] These new Comments provide cross-references to Rules that provide for screening and explain in more detail what measures may be adequate to assure an effective screen.

Return to Report Home Page | Return to Ethics 2000 Home Page | Return to Center Home Page