96-5.

Case DateAugust 22, 1996
CourtAlaska
Alaska Ethics Opinion 1996. 96-5. Ethics Opinion No. 96-5 Ethical Issues, if Any, Raised by the Use of an "Attorney's Representation" Form in Conjunction with the Execution of Release Agreements.The Committee has been asked whether an attorney is ethically prohibited from signing an affirmation or representation concerning an attorney's advice to a client in conjunction with the execution of a release agreement. For purposes of this opinion, the Committee will assume the affirmation or representation reads as follows: I, [attorney], of Anchorage, Alaska declare that I am the attorney representing Releasor in the above matter, and that I have carefully and fully explained the terms, provisions and effects of this release to Releasor, and that Releasor has represented to me that he/she believes they understand the terms thereof and significance of said terms. ______________________________ [Attorney] In the Committee's view, there is no ethical prohibition to using this type of affirmation or representation. However, the Committee's opinion is confined solely to the form of affirmation cited above. There are, or may be, serious ethical issues raised if an attorney affirms, or is asked to confirm, matters which go beyond the scope of the sample form. Further, the use of these forms is a matter of negotiation between the parties and/or contract formation. The Committee does not express any view as to whether such forms are necessary or appropriate; its observations are limited solely to the ethical issues, if any. Discussion At the outset, it is important to emphasize that an attorney representing a client called upon to execute a release agreement as part of a settlement has an ethical duty and obligation to do what is spelled out in the affirmation. See ARPC 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, and 1.4. For instance, many releases incorporate by reference the decisions by the Alaska Supreme Court in Witt v. Watkins, 579 P.2d 1065 (Alaska 1978) (release agreement is enforceable unless, at time of signing of release, releasor did not intend to discharge disabilities which were subsequently discovered) and Young v. State, 455 P.2d 889 (Alaska 1969) (release of one tortfeasor does not release other joint tortfeasors unless such tortfeasors are specifically named in the release.). A client reading the release agreement would have no knowledge or understanding...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT