A lawyer must obtain consent from the other attorney before contacting a represented person.

When you’re dealing with a case, one truth becomes almost invisible: respect for the attorney-client relationship is non-negotiable. That respect isn’t just a vague courtesy; it’s a concrete rule that guides how lawyers talk to people who already have a lawyer. So, what must happen before a lawyer can reach out to someone who’s represented by another attorney? The answer is simple, and it sits right in the ethics doorway: obtain consent from the other lawyer.

Let me explain what that really means, beyond a multiple-choice line you might memorize.

The rule in plain terms

Think of it as a boundary line drawn around a represented person. If a lawyer knows someone is represented by a different lawyer on the same matter, the direct communication with that person is generally off-limits unless the other lawyer gives the green light. In legal ethics terms, this is often framed as Rule 4.2, the so-called “no contact” rule. The core idea? The lawyer must go through the represented person’s attorney first, not around them.

Why this rule matters

A lot of what makes our legal system feel fair is the confidence that trusted information stays within the right channels. Without this check, a lawyer might slip into conversations that could:

• Undermine the existing attorney-client relationship, or the person’s ability to obtain independent legal advice.

• Create or deepen conflicts of interest that aren’t visible to the client or their counsel.

• Undercut the other side’s strategy or negotiation leverage by talking directly to someone who shouldn’t be negotiating without their lawyer present.

In short, this rule is a safeguard. It protects the integrity of the representation, helps ensure confidentiality and privilege stay intact, and keeps communications transparent and properly channeled. It’s not about being rigid; it’s about preserving fair play in a tense legal landscape where leverage can shift on a dime.

What counts as consent (and what doesn’t)

Consent isn’t a vague nod. It’s a clear authorization from the lawyer who represents the person. Here are a few practical points to keep in mind:

• Consent must come from the lawyer who represents the person, not from the client themselves. The represented party can’t “authorize” direct contact in a way that bypasses the attorney who holds the relationship.

• Consent can be given in writing or, in many jurisdictions, electronically or verbally, provided there’s a reliable record of that authorization. In practice, written consent tends to minimize misunderstandings.

• Consent isn’t a one-shot deal. If the matter changes, or different topics are on the table, a fresh confirmation from the other lawyer may be prudent.

• There are legitimate exceptions you’ll see in the rules. For example, if the represented person initiates contact, the attorney may respond, but even then the communication should not stray into counseling or negotiating topics that the other lawyer would typically handle. And in rare situations, a court order or explicit legal permission can override the usual constraint.

A quick look at how this plays out in real life

Let’s imagine a typical scenario. You’re representing a client in a dispute, and the opposing party already has counsel. Your client wants to discuss an element of settlement with the opposing party directly. You’d be stepping into risky territory unless you first get consent from the opposing party’s attorney. Without that consent, your outreach could be seen as bypassing proper channels and could trigger ethical alarms or professional sanctions.

Now suppose the represented person reaches out to you first—perhaps via email after a conference. You’re not free to lead a counseling conversation on strategy. The right move is to route the conversation through their lawyer, clarifying your position and ensuring that any discussion stays within the boundaries of the matter and the rules governing representation.

One more nuance worth noting: informal touches, like casual messages to “check in,” can look innocent but still run afoul of the rule if they amount to negotiating or altering the fabric of the representation. When in doubt, you pause, confirm, and proceed through the proper channel.

Common situations where the rule matters

• Settlement discussions: You’re tempted to reach out directly to a represented party to push a compromise. Don’t. Get consent from their counsel before any contact about the subject of the representation.

• Discovery or information requests: Direct questions to a represented party about the case can cross lines. The proper avenue is through the other lawyer, with permission.

• Communications via intermediaries: If someone acts as a go-between, you still need the attorney’s consent if the intermediary represents or speaks for the represented party in the context of the matter.

• Social media or public forums: Reaching out to a represented person on a public platform without the other lawyer’s consent can backfire. The platform doesn’t change the ethical obligation.

Edge cases and practical tips

No rule is a perfect fit for every twist and turn, but there are practical ways to stay on the right side of the law:

• When you’re unsure, ask for consent in writing. A quick, clear emailed or formal written note from the other lawyer can save hours of back-and-forth later.

• If the represented person initiates contact, document it. Note what was discussed and what topics were off-limits. This helps protect everyone if the matter later calls for clarification.

• In multi-party matters, identify who represents whom early on. Clear identification reduces the chances of accidental direct contact that could complicate negotiations or claims.

• Build a habit of channeling communications through the designated attorney. It’s easier to manage records, track consent, and keep all sides informed.

A few gentle reminders

Ethics rules aren’t designed to be mysterious puzzles. They exist to keep conversations professional, preserve the lawyer-client relationship, and maintain the integrity of the process. That’s why obtaining consent from the other lawyer isn’t just a checkbox; it’s a practice that reflects respect for colleagues, clients, and the court system.

If you’re ever leaning toward a direct message or a phone call to a represented person, pause for a moment. Ask yourself: am I respecting the channel that protects the client’s interests? If the answer isn’t a confident yes, take a step back and reach out through the proper contact.

Bringing it into the everyday

Here’s a simple mental model you can carry with you: treat every represented person as if they’re wearing a badge that says, “Consult with my attorney first.” The badge isn’t about being unfriendly; it’s about ensuring the right conversations happen at the right time, with the right people.

If you want a quick cheat sheet for the hallway conversation, consider this short checklist:

• Do I know the person is represented on the matter? If not, proceed with caution.

• Have I obtained explicit consent from the person’s lawyer to speak about the subject at hand?

• Is the topic within the scope of the representation, or is it something the represented person can discuss freely?

• If the person initiates contact, have I documented the interaction and clarified the boundaries of what can be discussed?

Keep it human, even when the stakes feel high

Lawyering is often a tug-of-war with high emotions, tight timelines, and complex facts. The ethics rule about contacting represented parties isn’t a cold rulebook entry; it’s a guardrail that helps keep conversations honest, fair, and productive. It protects clients, respects colleagues, and preserves the integrity of the system we rely on.

If you’re new to this area, you’ll notice a common thread: ethical communication is good communication. It reduces surprises, minimizes tactical missteps, and makes negotiations smoother in the long run. The simplest strategy—get consent from the other lawyer before speaking with a represented person—is powerful in its restraint and clarity.

So, the next time you’re about to pick up the phone or draft a message to someone who already has legal counsel, pause. Ask: has the proper consent been secured? If yes, proceed with confidence. If not, step back and reach out through the recognized channel. It’s a small move with a big payoff: respect, protection, and a smoother path through the inevitable twists and turns of any legal matter.

A final thought

Ethics aren’t about limiting opportunities; they’re about preserving opportunities for fair and effective advocacy. The consent rule is more than a procedural hurdle. It’s a reminder that great advocacy comes from coordinating with everyone who matters to the client’s story—carefully, transparently, and with integrity. And when you keep that spirit in mind, you’ll find that even a seemingly small rule can make a meaningful difference in how a case unfolds.

If you want to talk through scenarios or hear more about how this plays out in different jurisdictions, I’m here. We can unpack a few real-world examples, weigh which parts are universal, and highlight the nuances that vary from state to state. After all, ethics is wonderfully practical when you hear it lived out in the context of a real matter.