Legal Ethics Opinion #1506

Termination of Representation-Conflict of Interest-Zealous
Representation: Attorney's Former Firm Refusing to Advise
Client's of Attorney's New Location


You have presented a hypothetical situation in which Law Firm
employed Associate for over four years during which time
Associate was handling numerous client files for Law Firm.  You
indicate that, after not having received a raise for over two
years, Associate began to look for new employment.  When Senior
Partner learned that Associate was looking for new employment, he
fired Associate immediately and directed Associate to leave by
5:00 p.m. that day.  Other partners knew that Associate had been
looking for other employment; one partner offered Associate a
good recommendation.  Associate then rented an office nearby. 

You further indicate that Law Firm then decided to discontinue
practice in the areas of domestic relations, criminal defense,
and bankruptcy, the areas of most of Associate's cases, and to
concentrate exclusively on personal injury law.  Law Firm wrote
letters to all of Associate's former clients, asking them to
contact Law Firm so that they could then be referred to another
law firm.

You have advised that, following Assocate's departure, persons
who call Law Firm asking for Associate are interrogated as to why
they seek him and that, in most cases, they are not given
Associate's new business address.  Instead, callers are referred
to another firm selected by Law Firm.  Additionally, Associate
has no access to client records so that he is unable to advise
clients or approprate courts of his new address as necessary for
individual cases. You have also stated that one clerk of court
has advised Associate that the judge contemplated failure to
appear charges against Associate because no member of Law Firm
appeared in a criminal case.
  
You have asked the committee to opine whether, under the facts of
the inquiry, (1) it is ethical for Law Firm not to advise clients
of former Associate's address when asked; and (2) whether Law
Firm would be ethically obligated to proviesses of clients if
requested by former Associate.

The appropriate and controlling Disciplinary Rules related to
your inquiry are DR 2-108(D) which states that upon termination
of representation, a lawyer shall take reasonable steps for the
continued protection of a client's interests, including giving
reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of
other counsel, delivering all papers and property to which the
client is entitled, and refunding any advance payment of fee that
has not been earned; and DR 5-106(B) which provides that a lawyer
shall not permit a person who recommends, employs, or pays him to
render legal services for another to regulate his professional
judgment in rendering such legal services.

The committee has previously opined that requiring a client to
contact the firm, rather than the withdrawing attorney who
represented the client, would be improper in that the
employer/firm would be directing and regulating the lawyer's
professional judgment in the providing of legal services to his
client.  See LEO #1403.

The committee believes that the client is entitled to be informed
of all his choices, i.e., (1) that the client may remain with the
law firm, (2) that the client may remain with the associate, and
(3) that if neither the law firm nor the associate can adequately
and fully represent the client's interests, the firm or the
associate may recommend an attorney, or the client may choose his
own counsel.  See LEOs #381, #406.  Thus, in the facts you
present, the committee opines that by not advising the client of
Associate's new address when [directly] asked, Law Firm is
violating DR 5-106(B) and impermissibly regulating Associate's
professional judgment in the providing of legal services to his
client.

As to whether Law Firm is ethically obligated to provide
Associate with a list of client names and addresses when asked,
the committee directs your attention to LEO #1332, in which the
committee opined that if access to office and files of clduring
office hours, such conduct may be violative of DR 2-108(D) if a
finder of fact were to determine that the intention was to
preclude access to or to sequester the client files or copies of
client files from the withdrawing partner.  

The committee is of the view that the Law Firm should, at a
minimum, provide Associate with a list of client names and
addresses when so requested, so as not to deny either the
Associate's access to current client files or the protection of
clients' interests.  Since you indicate that the Law Firm has
failed to make an appearance in at least one case, while
simultaneously not providing Associate with the client's name and
address, the committee is concerned that the best interests of
the clients are not presently being served.

Committee Opinion
February 17, 1993