Transactions with Non-Clients · 2-8% of the exam

Night-before checklist

Chapter 17 · 2 items

Two points to keep straight.

Rule 4.3: never give legal advice to an unrepresented person whose interests may possibly be adverse to your client; the only advice allowed is to consult counsel; explaining the law in general terms isn't advice.
Under Rule 4.4, when you receive a document you know or should know was inadvertently sent, your complete obligation is to promptly notify the sender — the Model Rules require nothing more.

Ticks are remembered on this device, not in your account.

"Who Can I Talk To?" Quick Grid (a pointer grid: Rule 4.3 is taught above; Rules 3.4 and 3.5 are taught fully in Chapter 14, Rule 3.6 in Chapter 15, and Rule 4.2 in Chapter 16)

Contact	Rule	What's Allowed	Trap
Represented adversary	4.2	Their counsel's prior consent, authorization by law, or a court order	Calling the opposing party directly to "just ask a quick question"
Unrepresented person	4.3	General law yes; tailored advice no; correct any role misunderstanding; advise them to seek counsel if interests may conflict	Tailored advice when interests may possibly be adverse
Witness	3.4	Any witness who is neither personally represented nor a covered constituent of a represented organization (Ch. 16); reasonable expenses; lost time and any statutory fee on the ABA position rather than Rule 3.4(b)'s text; experts a reasonable fee	Payment tied to testimony content or case outcome
Juror (during trial)	3.5	No ex parte contact on any topic unless law or court order authorizes it — no subject-matter carve-out	Small talk counts; no subject-matter carve-out
Juror (after discharge)	3.5	Generally permitted — Rule 3.5(c)'s three exceptions apply	Assuming post-verdict contact is always available; local court rules — not Rule 3.5 — may still require prior judicial permission
Judge (ex parte)	3.5	Ex parte contact only when authorized by law or court order	Writing to chambers without simultaneously serving opposing counsel
Press	3.6	No substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the proceeding; safe harbors permitted	"Right of reply" when your side helped initiate; disparaging a witness