72-2.

• Case Date: January 30, 1972
• Court: Alaska

Alaska Ethics Opinion 1972. 72-2. Ethics Opinion No. 72-2Communication Upon Subject in Controversy with Opposing Party when Representation by Counsel in Question.The Ethics Committee of the Alaska Bar Association has been asked for its opinion on a question dealing with an interpretation of former Canon 9 of the Canons of Professional Ethics and the recently adopted Disciplinary Rule 7-104(A)(1) of the Code of Professional Responsibility. A stipulated Statement of the Facts is attached hereto as Exhibit A. In two separate actions an Alaska community represented by Alaska Legal Services Corporation sued both the Federal Government and the State of Alaska to restrict the Federal Government from taking certain actions and to restrict the State of Alaska from authorizing the Federal Government from taking the same actions. The Federal Government was enjoined from taking the actions but an injunction had not been issued against the State of Alaska. The Department of Law of the State of Alaska learned of the possibility that Alaska Legal Services Corporation was not authorized to bring the lawsuits on behalf of the Alaska community and a member of the Alaska State Legislature requested the Department of Law to investigate the matter. Without the knowledge of Alaska Legal Services Corporation, a member of the legal staff of the Department of Law interviewed members of the governing body of the Alaska community and obtained written statements from them to the effect that Alaska Legal Services Corporation did not have authority to bring the lawsuits. Canon 9 provides as follows: A lawyer should not in any way communicate upon the subject of controversy with a party represented by counsel; . . . Disciplinary Rule 7-104 (A)(1) provides as follows: During the course of his representation of a client, a lawyer shall not communicate or cause another to communicate on the subject of the representation with a party he knows to be represented by a lawyer in that matter unless he has the prior consent of the lawyer representing such other party or is authorized to law to do so. In an earlier opinion written by Charles P. Flynn, this Committee found as follows: . . . that a lawyer is ethically permitted to communicate with employees of a government entity concerning a matter in controversy and assuming that full disclosure of the lawyer's representation...