united-states attorney-client-relationship
How can I deal with a lawyer who is ignoring the real client in favor of the technical client?
<p>Imagine a situation where the client in a case is an elderly lady who is forgetful and completely inexperienced in the law and she relies on her son to help her with a legal case. The son engages an attorney and pays for the attorney, but the old lady is technically the &quot;client&quot; since she is the party to the case.</p>
<p>The lawyer then ignores the son, and communicates only with the old lady and tries to get her to agree to things or only reports his actions to the old lady. The apparent attitude of the lawyer is that since the lady is the client, he need only answer to her and in matters of judgement, all that matters is his (the lawyer's judgment), not that of the son, even though it is the son paying the legal fees and the lady relies completely on her son for legal and business matters.</p>
<p>What is the right procedure for this situation? How should it be handled from legal and diplomatic standpoints?</p>

<p>This is a very common situation, and -- assuming this is happening in the United States -- it is pretty clear that Attorney is behaving exactly as he should under the Rules of Professional Conduct.</p>
<p>Mother is the &quot;technical&quot; client <em>and</em> the &quot;real&quot; client. Son is not a client in any sense; he is merely a person paying the bills.</p>
<p>If Mother wants to involve Son, she can do that on her own, but Attorney is prohibited from disclosing his privileged communications with Mother and from substituting Son's preferences/judgments for those of his client.</p>
<p>If Son does not like what the lawyer is doing, he can encourage Mother to direct Attorney to change course, or Son can inform Attorney that he will stop paying for Attorney's services.</p>

<blockquote>
<p>The lawyer then ignores the son, and communicates only with the old lady</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This is proper and normal. The &quot;old lady&quot; is the client. The son is not the client, nor is he a member of the mother's legal team. So it would violate the rules of ethics for the lawyer to tell the son much of anything. The mother can explain things to the son if she wishes, but that might defeat confidentiality and jeopardize certain kinds of privilege, so the lawyer should advise her on how to do this properly.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>and tries to get her to agree to things</p>
</blockquote>
<p>What things? While it is possible for a lawyer to ask a client to agree to something that is not in the client's legal best interest, that would be malpractice, and a good lawyer should not do that regardless of who the client is. On the other hand, it is quite common for lawyers and their clients to agree on legal strategies, and there is nothing unusual or suspicious about that.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>or only reports his actions to the old lady.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>As above, this is proper and normal.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>even though it is the son paying the legal fees</p>
</blockquote>
<p>He can pay the fees if he wants to pay the fees, but that doesn't make him the client.</p>
<blockquote>
<p>and the lady relies completely on her son for legal and business matters.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Does the son have power of attorney, a conservatorship, or any similar legal arrangement? If not, then this is none of the lawyer's concern, and that's the end of the matter. If the son is a conservator, then he probably does have some right to appoint and direct legal counsel on behalf of his mother, but this is the sort of thing that really should be hashed out up front, when the lawyer is first hired. You don't spring a conservatorship on a lawyer after they've already been engaged and done substantive work on the case.</p>

<p>Similarly, suppose a legal aid society pays for the criminal defense of someone.  Defendant proclaims innocence and lawyer thinks the case is winnable. But the legal aid society &quot;gets cold feet&quot; and asks the lawyer to get the client to plea bargain to guilty.  Now what?</p>
<h2>Let's look at the <a href="https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/model_rules_of_professional_conduct_table_of_contents/" rel="noreferrer">Rules of Professional Conduct</a>*.</h2>
<blockquote>
<p>Rule 1.8: Current Clients: Specific rules.</p>
<p>(f)  A lawyer shall not accept compensation for representing a client from one other than the client unless:<br />
(1)  the client gives informed consent;<br />
(2)  <em><strong>there is no interference with the lawyer's independence of professional judgment</strong></em> or with the client-lawyer relationship; and<br />
(3)  information relating to representation of a client is protected as required by Rule 1.6.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>Rule 1.6 Confidentiality of Information</p>
<p>(a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b).<br />
(b) A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:<br />
[and none of these mention the person paying, or mention money at all]</p>
</blockquote>
<p>So it's there in black and white.</p>
<p>The lawyer is not allowed to discuss the case with the  son.  The lawyer is also not allowed to allow the son to manipulate the case.</p>
<p>The rules are clear that the son talking to the attorney is fruitless.  The son needs to talk to the mother.  Only by the mother's direction can the son be included in the legal work.</p>
<hr />
<hr />
<p>* The ABA is the American Bar Association, the primary trade organization of lawyers.  These are the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, which is a &quot;Model Law&quot; written by a nonprofit, with an eye toward states adopting it as their state law. Many states have.</p>

<p>Harper - Reinstate Monica, bdb484, and Kevin's answers are correct in that the mother is the attorney's client and the son is only paying the bills, but they don't address the part about the mother being someone &quot;....who is forgetful and completely inexperienced in the law and she relies on her son....&quot;</p>
<p>If the mother in this case is so forgetful and gullible that she needs her son to protect her from her own poor choices (as opposed to just disagreeing with her son on the best course of action), then this is a textbook case where the son should seek guardianship of his mother by petitioning the court to have her declared incompetent. If she is declared incompetent, then her guardian would have access to all of her legal records and would, most likely, be authorized to direct her attorney.</p>

<p>Client (mother) should inform her attorney that all communications should be through or copied to her son.</p>
<p>If attorney does not comply with clear instruction from client (mother), &quot;diplomatic&quot; response is not appropriate: attorney should be replaced and complaint made.</p>
<p>Instructions should be made in writing if necessary.</p>
<p>If client (mother) is unwilling to give such instructions to attorney, son is SOL.</p>
