2003

  • Opinion 03-4
    Summary: Whether an attorney may undertake a representation against a former client depends upon whether the former matter and the current matter are “substantially related.” On the facts presented, that answer may turn on whether the Supreme Judicial Court follows cases defining “substantially related” matters as those in which the issues are “essentially the same” or whether it follows cases defining such matters as those arising out of the same factual context or same subject matter. Whether the attorney may undertake the representation may also turn on the extent to which he has material information about the negotiating and decision-making techniques of his former client. .
  • Opinion 03-03
    Summary: A lawyer representing a defendant in a criminal proceeding may not contact the complaining witnesses without permission of their private attorney even if a civil action has not yet been filed.
  • Opinion 03-2
    Summary: A lawyer who drafts an advertisement for a client to place under its own name runs a substantial risk of violation of Rules 3.6 and 8.4(a) of the Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) when the lawyer concludes that placing the same advertisement under her own name would violate Rule 3.6.
  • Opinion 03-1
    Summary: A municipal attorney who advised a department head in his official capacity at a deposition in a lawsuit between two private parties may represent the municipality in an “unrelated” lawsuit brought by that department head against the municipality subsequent to his departure from municipal employment and may introduce the deposition testimony to impeach the former department head.
©2014 Massachusetts Bar Association