Connecticut Legal Ethics

1.4 Rule 1.4 Communication

1.4:100 Comparative Analysis of Connecticut Rule

‰ Primary Connecticut References: CT Rule 1.4
‰ Background References: ABA Model Rule 1.4, Other Jurisdictions
‰ Commentary:
‰ Connecticut Commentary:

1.4:101 Model Rule Comparison

Conn. Rule 1.4(a) and (b) are very similar to Model Rule 1.4(a) and (b). The Model Rule adds 1.4(a)(1)-(2), which requires a lawyer to inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client's informed consent is required and also to Ëreasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client's objectives are to be accomplished.Ó The Model Rule also adds comments [2] and [3], which explain Rules 1.4(a)(1) - (2).

1.4:102 Model Code Comparison

Conn. Rule 1.4 had no direct counterpart in the Model Code, although DR 6-101(A) (3) provided that a lawyer must not "neglect a legal matter entrusted to him," and DR 9-102(B) (1) required that a lawyer promptly notify a client of receipt of funds and other properties. In addition, EC 7-7 stated that it was for the client to decide whether to accept a settlement offer or waive an affirmative defense; EC 7-8 said a lawyer should "exert his best efforts" to insure that the client's decisions were fully informed; and EC 9-2 stated that "a lawyer should fully and promptly inform his client of material developments."

1.4:200 Duty to Communicate with Client

‰ Primary Connecticut References: CT Rule 1.4(a)
‰ Background References: ABA Model Rule 1.4(a), Other Jurisdictions
‰ Commentary:
‰ Connecticut Commentary:

In Statewide Grievance Committee v. Friedland, 222 Conn. 131, 609 A.2d 645 (Conn. 1992), the Connecticut Supreme Court held that a lawyer violated Rule 1.4 where he failed to keep his clients informed about the status of their case, failed to keep appointments or otherwise reasonably communicate with his clients, and additionally, at times, did not maintain a working telephone number.

In Statewide Grievance Committee v. Timbers, 2000 WL 1198009 (Conn. Super. 2000), the court found that communication with a client, regarding attorneyÁs fees, is not excluded from Rule 1.4.

In Standish v. Stapelton, No. 394608, 2000 WL 1785049 (Conn. Super. Nov. 8, 2000), the court found that the communications that the client now claims should have been made would not have assisted her in achieving her objective, therefore it is not a violation of Rule 1.4. ËThe purpose of the duty of communication is to provide the client with Çsufficient information to participate intelligently in decisions concerning the objectives of the representations.ÁÓ Id. Also, where a client does not ËrequestÓ information, the lawyerÁs duty is limited to keeping the client Ëreasonably informed.Ó

In Statewide Grievance Committee v. Diorio, No. CV900276062, 1990 WL 264789 (Conn. Super. Nov. 30, 1990), the court held that a lawyer violates Rule 1.4(b) by failing to inform clients about the correct status of their case and to explain the consequences thereof to them so they could make informed decisions about their course of action.

1.4:300 Duty to Consult with Client

‰ Primary Connecticut References: CT Rule 1.4(b)
‰ Background References: ABA Model Rule 1.4(b), Other Jurisdictions
‰ Commentary: ABA/BNA ă 31.501, ALI-LGL ăă 20, Wolfram ăă 4.5
‰ Connecticut Commentary:

In Statewide Grievance Committee v. Gifford, No. CV000800490, 2002 WL 237821 (Conn. Super Jan. 23, 2002), the court held that a lawyer who believes that his clientÁs case has no merit cannot unilaterally abandon the case without informing the client. The lawyerÁs failure to contact the client to inform her of his concerns about the case and to reach some type of agreement to end his representation is a violation of Rule 1.4.

1.4:400 Duty to Inform the Client of Settlement Offers

‰ Primary Connecticut References: CT Rule 1.4
‰ Background References: ABA Model Rule 1.4, Other Jurisdictions
‰ Commentary: ABA/BNA ă 31.501, ALI-LGL ăă 20, Wolfram ăă 4.5
‰ Connecticut Commentary:

In Laviano v. Statewide Grievance Committee, No. CV990497413, 2000 WL 1196427 (Conn. Super. July 28, 2000), the court found that a lawyer violated Rule 1.4 by failing to notify a client for nearly six months of the other sideÁs rejection of a settlement offer.