Opinion ID: 2614963
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: ER 1.4: Communication

Text: The Committee found, and the Commission agreed, that Respondent violated ER 1.4. ER 1.4(a) and (b) require that [a] lawyer shall keep a client reasonably informed about the status of a matter ... and explain [it] to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation. See In re Cardenas, 164 Ariz. at 151, 791 P.2d at 1034 (finding the failure to notify clients of important matters and explain them to ensure informed decision making violated ER 1.4). By not consulting with his client about the possibility of instructing on lesser included offenses, Respondent failed to keep his client informed about the status of her criminal trial. She was deprived of her right to participate in this very important decision. Even though the lawyer is responsible for the means chosen to pursue a client's objectives, informing the client regarding the essentials of those means is still required. See ER 1.4 (comment). The fact that Respondent's client was adamant about staying out of prison did not excuse him from his obligation of consulting her when making this significant decision. We reject Respondent's contention that an explanation of lesser included offenses was unnecessary because an all-or-nothing defense was an implicit objective of the representation and, therefore, it can be inferred that Respondent's strategy was agreeable to his client. Respondent's Opening Brief at 28. This sort of implicit agreement plainly does not comply with ER 1.4. We need not decide exactly what is needed to comport with ER 1.4. It is sufficient to hold that Respondent's inferences based on an implicit agreement fall far short of compliance. A lawyer has an obligation to explain the problem, lay out the significant choices, and help the client make an informed, rational decision. Respondent's failure to consult with his client regarding the possibility of instructing the jury on lesser included offenses demonstrates, clearly and convincingly, that Respondent violated ER 1.4. We therefore agree with the Committee and the Commission and conclude that Respondent failed to communicate properly with his client in violation of ER 1.4.