Opinion ID: 780062
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: ABA Code of Professional Responsibility

Text: 68 Randall also claims that the government's working with confidential informants who engaged in conversations with Randall violated DR 7-104. This Disciplinary Rule provides in pertinent part as follows: 69 During the course of his representation of a client a lawyer shall not ... [c]ommunicate or cause another to communicate on the subject to the representation with a party he knows to be represented by a lawyer in that matter unless he has the prior consent of the lawyer representing such other party or is authorized by law to do so. 70 Randall has cited no authority, nor have we found any, to support his contention that the government's working with confidential informants to elicit incriminating information from a represented defendant violates DR 7-104. Cf. United States v. Heinz, 983 F.2d 609, 618 (5th Cir.1993) (The use of informants to gather evidence against a suspect will generally, if not almost always, fall within the ambit of the `authorized by law' exception to DR 7-104.) (emphasis omitted). In the absence of authoritative support, and after taking into account that the Supreme Court has allowed such informant testimony, Perkins, 496 U.S. at 296-98, 110 S.Ct. 2394, we are unable to conclude that plain error occurred in allowing the testimony in question.