伦理意见247

Whether Settlement Lawyer Selected by Real Estate Purchaser Has a Sufficient Lawyer-Client Relationship With Seller to Warrant Disqualification; Conflict of Interest if Adverse Party Formerly Was Represented by a Firm to Whom Lawyer Is “Of Counsel”

在住宅房地产交易中为买卖双方提供服务的澳博app没有通知卖方他只代表买方，也没有说明他与卖方的关系, the lawyer should not represent the purchaser against the 卖方 in a subsequent dispute concerning the sale. This disqualification is imputed to a lawyer who listed himself as “of counsel” to the real estate lawyer at the time of the transaction.

适用的规则

• 规则1.(利益冲突:一般规则)
• 规则1.9(利益冲突:前客户)
• 规则1.10(利益冲突:推定取消资格:一般规则)
• 规则2.2(澳博app作为中介)
• 规则4.3(处理无代表人士)

调查

The Inquirer’s firm shares office space with Lawyer A and Inquirer is listed on Lawyer A’s letterhead as “of counsel” to Lawyer A’s firm. 《澳博app》被要求在一场可能对卖方提起的诉讼中代表一所房子的买方. A澳博app于1983年处理了有关房屋的纠纷.

The standard form real estate contract used in the transaction gave purchasers the opportunity to select the real estate lawyer. 结算时，卖方支付100元A澳博app的“成交费”，买方支付125元. 买家还向A澳博app支付了100美元，以进行产权审查. The 卖方s paid $90 to Lawyer A for notes and deeds of trust drafted for two $9000 trusts taken back on the property. 买方还向产权保险公司支付了75美元的产权摘要费用. 澳博appA是唯一参与交易的澳博app.

The “of counsel” designation and shared space arrangements between Lawyer A and the Inquirer have been in place from prior to 1983 through the time of the 调查. 《澳博app下载网》表示，他与A澳博app的关系一直是偶尔就房地产业务以外的事务提供意见，他对1983年的房地产交易并不知情.

澳博appA雇佣了办公室套间的接待员, 《澳博app》从她的薪水中抽取一定比例. The single receptionist greets guests to the office and directs Inquirer’s clients to him or to his secretary. 在秘书不在的时候，她为询问者和他的合伙人接听电话留言. 她用询问者公司的名字接听询问者的电话号码. 她接听A澳博app的单独电话，回答“澳博app事务所”.“她把邮件分门别类，不拆开给询问者的秘书. 接待员是澳博appA唯一为询问者或他的公司工作的雇员. (In 1983, 接待员受雇于询问者的公司，薪水由a澳博app提供, 但办公室的程序是一样的.)

文件完全分开保存. 这两家公司使用不同的计算机系统，不兼容. 这些公司有不同的电话号码，但共用一台传真机. 两家公司之间不分享任何费用. The two firms have had tenant and subtenant arrangements on the lease as well as being joint tenants on the current sublease. 双方的关系仅限于对案件提供有用的法律建议和案件转介. 在关系开始的时候, 澳博appA是个单独执业的澳博app, 询问者事务所的三个合伙人都是他的“顾问”. 今天, 澳博appA有四位澳博app, 询问者的事务所有两位退休后的澳博app.

In 1993, the purchasers in the 1983 transaction retained the Inquirer in a claim for damages against the 卖方s in the 1983 transaction alleging latent defects in the property. 在1983年关闭几年后，A澳博app将他们介绍给《澳博app》，讨论分区问题. 那时询问者已经为购买者做了几个小时的工作. 当目前的纠纷出现时，A澳博app再次建议购买者咨询询问者.

Inquirer’s letter is accompanied by a letter from Lawyer A that recounts the following additional information. 在购买者保留询问者之前, 其中一个卖家打电话给澳博appA，问了一些问题. 经过一番交谈，澳博appA问交易涉及谁. 当他被告知, A澳博app说，他记得处理过那笔财产，而且还认识买主. He said he would not discuss the matter further in any detail with the 卖方 in that there was a dispute between the parties. He said that he assured the 卖方 that he would not discuss his comments with the purchasers and would not represent them. 他说，他之所以选择这个职位，是因为他更愿意谨慎行事，尽管他不确定自己是否有资格根据谈话或过去的代理资格来代表买家.

澳博appA说, 在他看来, he did not enter into a lawyer-client relationship with the Sellers that would have disqualified him from representing the purchasers. 他将自己与卖方的关系描述为“妥善记录记录文件的信托关系，并按照合同和商定的结算声明中所指示的方式支付托管资金。.在随后的谈话中, 澳博appA说, 作为和解澳博app, 他认为自己代表购买者直到成交. 直到那个时候, 他将以一种可能有损其他各方利益的方式代表买方行事, e.g.，建议他们如何毁约. 他说他告诉购买者, 一旦到达关闭点, 他对其他当事人也负有信义义务，这要求他准备和记录文件和其他必要的东西，以适当地实施协议. He says his relationship to purchasers never involves asking them for information or other-wise acquiring confidential information nor the provision of legal advice. He does not use informed consent waivers with real estate settlement clients nor distribute any type of written notice on his role and relationship to the parties.

卖方对询问者的陈述提出质疑. Inquirer asks if his “of counsel” relationship is sufficient to impute disqualification to the Inquirer from representing the purchasers in the 1983 transaction. 在另一种情况下, he asks whether Lawyer A’s relationship to the 1983 卖方s was sufficient to create a disqualification of Lawyer A that could be so imputed.

讨论

调查提出了四个可能的问题:

1. 澳博appA在1983年房地产交易中与卖方的关系是否产生了冲突，以致于他将被禁止在随后的有关该物业潜在缺陷的纠纷中代表买方?

2. 如果a澳博app存在这样的冲突, should this conflict be imputed to the Inquirer who is listed as “of counsel” to Lawyer A’s firm and shares space with Lawyer A?

3. 即使A澳博app在之前的分析中没有被禁止代表购买者, 他会因为1993年卖家给A澳博app打电话而被禁止吗?

4. 如果A澳博app因为这个电话而被禁赛，这个禁赛会归咎于询问者吗?

问题1

许多澳博app协会对多方利益的代表发表了意见(买方), 卖方, 抵押人, 产权保险公司)在房地产交易, 但本委员会以前没有发表评论. Some of these opinions from other jurisdictions also address representation if a subsequent dispute arises among the parties to the transaction.¹

在有关结算公司或其他非澳博app进行的房地产交割是否属于未经授权的法律行为的案件中，也讨论了房地产交易中的代理. 见In re First Escrow, Inc.Best托管公司.，……. _____， 840秒.W.2d 839(1992)，审查多个司法管辖区的判例法. 除了审查这两方面的权力, the Committee heard from several lawyers experienced in residential real estate closings as part of its deliberation.

关于单一澳博app在结案时的角色应该如何界定，存在争议. 1. The lawyer is performing activities that are not the practice of law since the functions are also performed by non-lawyers. 2. 澳博app代表多个客户(买方), 卖方, 和贷方)，可能有不同的利益. 3. 澳博app只代表一方当事人(通常是有权选择澳博app的买方)，在交易完成时对其他当事人负有信托义务. 这些受托义务要求采取某些行动，例如.g., 记录文件, 资金分配, 但不得与其他当事人构成澳博app-委托人关系. 4. 澳博app在委托人之间起中介作用.

澳博appA用第三个特征来描述1983年的陈述. 卖方不同意，并将选择第二个特征来描述代表.

This inquiry does not ask for guidance on how lawyers in residential real estate closing should deal with the multiple parties involved. The Committee does not think it wise to address that question in an inquiry in which the matter comes up only indirectly. 在住宅交易中，澳博app角色的哪些特征是允许的，哪些应该适用于这里涉及的1983年的交易，我们没有得出结论.

在不选择相互矛盾的特征的情况下，我们提请注意规则2的规定.2(澳博app作为普通客户的中介)和4.(代表客户与没有澳博app代表的人打交道的澳博app). 这两条规则都强调了澳博app角色的重要性, 职责, 当这些问题可能被多个参与者误解时，非关税就明确了.

在这种情况下, we understand that Lawyer A gave no oral or written notice that explicitly stated to the 卖方 the lawyer’s view that he represented the purchasers, 不是卖家, 只对卖方负有完成交易的受托义务. 澳博appA指出，质疑代理的卖方也是一名澳博app. 澳博appA说, 当需要第二个信托的时候, 他问卖方是否愿意亲自起草信托, 换一个澳博app, 或者让A澳博app制作一份(他使用了联邦保险公司的标准表格).

我们不推测卖方对此事的理解或应该理解, 鉴于他的法律训练. This opinion considers the relationship of the attorney to the parties in the 1983 transaction solely to determine whether under 规则1.澳博appA可就重大相关事项代表买方与卖方对簿公章. 在这个问题上, 我们认为, in the absence of a clear contemporaneous statement that Lawyer A represented only the purchasers and 不是卖家, 澳博appA不得在随后的重大相关事项中代表买方与卖方对抗. 这种遗漏是否足以使A澳博app在1983年的交易中根据其他规则对卖方负有义务，将取决于这些规则所依据的政策. 我们对未来调查中可能出现的问题不发表意见.

委员会与住宅房地产澳博app的磋商表明，一些澳博app经常向当事人提供书面通知，解释澳博app的代理范围, 义务, non-义务, 如果双方之间发生争议，当然也要遵循这一原则. 这似乎是明智的，无论澳博app假设多方关系的哪一种特征，或法院可能发现作为法律问题存在的哪一种特征.

问题2

Having decided that Lawyer A should not represent the 1983 purchaser against the 卖方 in a substantially related matter, 我们得出的问题是，作为澳博appA的“顾问”的询问者是否也不合格.

规则1.10说

而澳博app们则在同一家公司里合作, none of them shall knowingly represent a client when any one of them practicing alone would be prohibited from doing so by 规则 1.7, 1.8(b), 1.9, or 2.2.

在前一节中, 我们拒绝决定在住宅房地产交易中的单一澳博app是否应被定性为代表具有潜在不同利益的多个客户，这些客户受规则1的约束.7、受规则2管辖的客户之间的中介人.2，或者其他两种可能. 我们认为，由于缺乏明确澳博app在卖方事务中的角色的通知，使得A澳博app不应在随后不顾卖方的反对，在实质上相关的事项上进行不利代理. 澳博app和卖方之间的关系足以导致根据规则1取消资格.9. 既然关系到卖方, 没有澄清通知, 是否足以导致a澳博app被取消资格, 根据规则1，也足以取消一名“与某公司有关联”的澳博app的资格.10.

We now turn to whether Lawyer A and the Inquirer should be considered “associated in a firm” within the meaning of 规则1.10(a). 直到现在, 关于费用分摊的第151号意见是我们对“澳博app”一词的含义所作的唯一说明.第151号意见认为，澳博app之间的关系可以足够像合伙人或合伙人之间的关系，从而允许根据DR 2-107(a)的措辞，将费用分摊限制在“合伙人”和“合伙人”之间。.

在这里，我们考虑那些在公众面前自称为“法律顾问”的澳博app是否可以被发现有足够疏远的关系，以避免在规则1下被推定为丧失资格.10(a). 正如151号意见所提到的, 当时生效的推定取消资格规则(DR 5-105(D))明确将推定取消资格的范围从合伙人和助理扩展到“与他或他的事务所有关联的任何其他澳博app”.规则1.第10(a)条将取消资格取决于澳博app是否“与某一澳博app事务所有关联”.”

Opinion 192 considers whether members of “associated” or “correspondent” firms should be disqualified for conflicts on this basis. 委员会认为，这些条款营造了一种“持续和正常的关系”的印象，并创造了“律所澳博app不会代表利益冲突的合理印象”.”

美国澳博app协会第90-357号意见同样指出，“澳博app”一词对公众来说是一种“封闭”, 常规的, 澳博app之间的“私人关系”是一种“普遍而持续的”关系. It holds that there “can be no doubt” that an of counsel lawyer or firm is “associated” for purposes of imputed disqualification under Model 规则1.10 . as well as.11 (a)和1.12 (c)).

对规则1的评论1.第10条规定，如果两名从业人员共用空间，偶尔进行咨询，如果他们以一种暗示他们是一家公司的方式向公众展示自己，将被视为一家公司，并被取消资格. 之前引用的第192号意见和美国澳博app协会第90-357号意见与我们的观点一致，即“澳博app”的称号给公众留下了澳博app之间关系足够密切的印象，因此他们应该被视为同一家公司的澳博app，以根据规则1进行推定取消资格分析.10(a).²

第3、4期

在对问题1和2得出了前面的结论之后，我们还没有谈到问题3. 至于第4期, 如果A澳博app在问题3(1993年与卖方的电话)中被取消资格, the Inquirer would have been disqualified on the same reasoning on the “of counsel” designation discussed in Issue #2.

调查没有. 93-11-31
通过:1994年5月24日

1. 看到阿拉巴马州. Op. 86-106 (11/6/86); Ill. Op. 86-15(1987年5月13日)和Op. 90-3 (11/6/90); Mass. Op. 1990-3 (undated); N.H. Op. 1989-90/1 (6/21/90); New York City Op. 1990-1 (undated); N.Y. 州Op. 576(6/5/86)和Op. 611 (6/20/90); Pa. Op. 88-95 (undated); Philadelphia Op. 86-46(4/10/86)及Op. 89-16 (6/16/89); S.C. Op. 86-9 (undated); Suffolk County, New York Op. 88-6 (undated); Tex. Op. 448 (9/11/87); Va. Op. 824 (10/9/86), Op. 1000 (11/12/87), Op. 1089 (6/8/88)， Op. 1149 (12/19/88); W.Va.， Op 89-1(未注明日期).
2. This opinion imputes disqualification to attorneys sharing space because of their representations to the public. ABA正式Op. 90-357不赞成在涉及个案的关系中使用“澳博app”一词, 代理:合法业务的代理或接收人, 其他不相关的澳博app或事务所之间偶尔的合作努力, 或者和外部顾问的关系. 它列出了其他四种情况，它认为这个术语是适当的. 它不讨论那些仅仅在共享空间的基础上自称为澳博app的澳博app, 但言下之意是，这在道德上是不允许的.
  D.C. Op. 第151条提到“法律顾问”的定义是一个“不断发展的概念”.它引用了, 作为一种可能性, 只共享办公空间和其他设施的澳博app. 我们不知道Op. 151 .应当重新考虑用“澳博app”一词来描述共用空间的安排.