Vt. R. Prof. Cond. 2.2
Vt. R. Prof. Cond. 2.2
V.R.P.C. 2.2 and the Comment thereto, like Model Rule 2.2 and its Comment, are entirely deleted. Issues pertaining to common representation are now covered by V.R.P.C. 1.7 and the Comment thereto. The role of the lawyer as mediator or other neutral is now covered by new V.R.P.C. 2.4 and its Comment. These changes recognize the potential confusion between "intermediation" and mediation that was created by original Model Rule 2.2, as pointed out in Reporter's Notes to V.R.P.C. 2.2 (1999).
The ABA Reporter's Explanation is as follows:
TEXT:
The Commission recommends deleting Rule 2.2 and moving any discussion of common representation to the Rule 1.7 Comment. The Commission is convinced that neither the concept of "intermediation" (as distinct from either "representation" or "mediation") nor the relationship between Rules 2.2 and 1.7 has been well understood. Prior to the adoption of the Model Rules, there was more resistance to the idea of lawyers helping multiple clients to resolve their differences through common representation; thus, the original idea behind Rule 2.2 was to permit common representation when the circumstances were such that the potential benefits for the clients outweighed the potential risks. Rule 2.2, however, contains some limitations not present in Rule 1.7; for example, a flat prohibition on a lawyer continuing to represent one client and not the other if intermediation fails, even if neither client objects. As a result, lawyers not wishing to be bound by such limitations may choose to consider the representation as falling under Rule 1.7 rather than Rule 2.2, and there is nothing in the Rules themselves that clearly dictates a contrary result.
Rather than amending Rule 2.2, the Commission believes that the ideas expressed therein are better dealt with in the Comment to Rule 1.7. There is much in Rule 2.2 and its Comment that applies to all examples of common representation and ought to appear in Rule 1.7. Moreover, there is less resistance to common representation today than there was in 1983; thus, there is no longer any particular
need to establish the propriety of common representation through a separate Rule.
COMMENT:
[1] This Comment has been deleted. The Commission believes the term "common representation" is preferable to "intermediation."
[2] This Comment has been deleted as no longer necessary since the term 'intermediation' has been eliminated.
[3] This Comment has been deleted. Some of the material may be found in the Comment to Rule 1.7.
[4] This Comment has been deleted. Some of the material may be found in the Comment to Rule 1.7.
[5] This Comment has been deleted as no longer necessary after the elimination of the term 'intermediation."
[6] This Comment has been deleted. Some of the material may be found in the Comment to Rule 1.7.
[7] This Comment has been deleted. Some of the material may be found in the Comment to Rule 1.7.
[8] This Comment has been deleted. Some of the material may be found in the Comment to Rule 1.7.
[9] This Comment has been deleted. Some of the material may be found in the Comment to Rule 1.7.
[10] This Comment has been deleted. Some of the material may be found in the Comment to Rule 1.7.