Member Login
On Demand
Classifieds
Insurance
My Resources
My Practice Areas
Update Address
E-mail Preferences
My On Demand
My ePublications
My Classifieds
Member Card
Need a Lawyer?
Casemaker
Home
Membership
Member Get A Member
Appreciation Week
Member Benefits
Join/Renew Online
Dues Structure and Rates
Print an Application
Special Promotions
FAQs
Member Groups
MBA Sections/Division
Committees & Task Forces
Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee
Amicus Curiae Committee
Appellate Bench Bar Committee
Budget & Finance Committee
Crime Lab Task Force
Diversity Task Force
Education Committee
Executive Management Board
Fair and Impartial Judiciary Strike Force
Fee Arbitration Board Committee
Governance Committee
Insurance Committee
Joint Bar Committee
Joint Foreclosure Legislative Task Force
Law Day Task Force
Lawyer Referral Service Committee
Media Committee
Membership Committee
Mock Trial Committee
Plain English Jury Instruction Task Force
Tiered Mentoring Committee
Volunteer Recognition, Recruitment and Retention Task Force
Workplace Safety Task Force
CLE
MBA On Demand
CLE Programs
CLE Publications
Massachusetts Bar Institute
Events
Calendar
Event Form
2013 Annual Dinner Sponsors
For Attorneys
Casemaker
Affiliated Bar Services
Alternative Dispute Resolution
Ethical Inquiries
Fee Arbitration
Lawyers Eco-Challenge
Lawyer Referral Service
Mentor Program
Mentor Circles
Professional Development
Volunteer Opportunities
Publications
Guide to the Massachusetts Judicial Selection Process
e-Journal
Ethics Opinions
Lawyers Journal
Massachusetts Law Review
Section Review
Judicial Preference Guide
Submission Guidelines
Legislative Activities
MBA Reports
Drug Lab Crisis Resource Center
MUPC
The Legislative Process
Glossary of Legislative Terms
MBA Positions
Contacting Key Legislators
Section Council Legislative Procedures
Joint Bar Committee
Legislative Hearings
MBA memo on Senate Bill No. 2210
About the MBA
MBA Leadership
Press Room
Employees of the MBA
Mass Bar Foundation
Mass Bar Insurance
Office Locations
MBA Bylaws
Advertising with the MBA
For the Public
MBA Marathon Bombing Victims Legal Assistance Program
Need a Lawyer?
FAQs
Helpful Links
Public Service Fund
Public Information
Career Awareness
Law-Related Education
Publications
Guide to the Massachusetts Judicial Selection Process
e-Journal
Ethics Opinions
Lawyers Journal
Massachusetts Law Review
Section Review
Judicial Preference Guide
Submission Guidelines
Ethics Opinions
2010-2019
2000-2009
1990-1999
1980-1989
1973-1979
Search
2000-2009
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
2002
Opinion No 02-4
Opinion No 02-3
Opinion No 02-2
Opinion No 02-1
2002
Opinion No. 02-4
Summary
: The Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct would not govern the ability of a Massachusetts-licensed federal government lawyer to interview former employees of a corporation party in litigation pending before a federal agency in another jurisdiction.
Opinion No. 02-3
Summary
: As a general rule, the anti-contact prohibition of Rule 4.2 does not apply to former employees of a corporation.
Opinion No. 02-2
Summary
: Under Rule 1.7, a lawyer may not simultaneously represent two clients seeking to develop adjoining parcels of land when one client proposes to object to the other client's effort to obtain the necessary permit from the zoning board unless both clients give informed consent to the dual representation and the lawyer reasonably believes that dual representation will not adversely affect her relationship with either client. If each representation was permissible when undertaken and the objection by one client to the other's project was not reasonably foreseeable at that time, it may be permissible to drop one client and to continue to represent the other.
Opinion No. 02-1
Summary
: When a lawyer is representing a husband and wife as co-executors of an estate in which they are beneficiaries of a substantial minority interest in a valuable piece of real estate, the lawyer may not undertake representation of the wife in a divorce proceeding against the husband unless he can meet the consent and objective test requirements of Rule 1.7(a). Whether he may represent the wife with the husband's consent depends upon the circumstances of the particular case. The lawyer may not solve the conflict problem by withdrawing from representation of the husband as co-executor.
©2013 Massachusetts Bar Association