Court Opinion

ID: 9776499
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:38:05.125356+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:39.301423
License: Public Domain

RENDLEN, Judge,
concurring.
At the outset, we should be mindful that ours is an adversary system and it is in this context that we evaluate the case sub judi-ce.
When, during the course of this litigation, respondent’s attorney received information indicating appellant was represented by counsel, he promptly communicated this fact to his client as required by Rule 4, Rules of Professional Conduct, where it is stated in the preamble:
In all professional functions a lawyer should be competent, prompt and diligent. A lawyer should maintain communication with a client concerning the representation.
It was the attorney’s responsibility as an advisor of his client in our adversary system to do what he did:
As a representative of clients, a lawyer performs various functions. As advisor, a lawyer provides a client with an informed understanding of the client’s legal rights and obligations and explains their practical implications.
Id. (Emphasis added.)
He was, of course, more than an advis- or — he was an advocate:
As advocate, a lawyer zealously asserts the client’s position under the rules of the adversary system.
Id. (Emphasis added.)
After communicating with the client and explaining the situation in explicit terms, they shared the decision as to the course of action to follow, all consistent with the provisions of Rule 1.2 of Rule 4 which indicates that, except in certain specified instances, an attorney shall abide by the client’s decisions concerning the objectives of representation. Though in the case at bar we need not decide whether he was obligated absolutely to follow the client’s direction, it is clear that plaintiffs counsel made a good faith, albeit difficult, decision which we cannot say was unethical. Assuming arguendo respondent’s counsel had chosen to disregard his client’s direction and the judgment had been vacated at his behest, or as a result of his conduct, clearly he would risk a charge of failing to comply with an obligation imposed by the Rules of Professional Conduct, to say nothing of malpractice claims by his client that could flow from the formidable choice he was required to make.
For these reasons too, I concur in the majority opinion of the Court.