Login Button
Infinite Menus, Copyright 2006, OpenCube Inc. All Rights Reserved.
CLE Presentations by Fellows
Recent National Continuing Legal Education (CLE) Presentations by Fellows
Learn more >>
Commentary by Fellows
Capital Letters
Ronald D. Aucutt Steve R. Akers
Publications by Fellows
A Bibliography of Texts
and Treatises Written by Fellows
Learn more >>
Mary Moers Wenig Student Writing Competition
Rules, Entry Forms, and Past Winners
Learn more >>
ACTEC
901 15th Street, NW
Suite 525
Washington, DC 20005
T: (202) 684-8460
F: (202) 684-8459

Follow ACTEC on Twitter

ACTEC Commentaries on the Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Fourth Edition 2006
Note: The ACTEC Commentaries are also available in PDF format.

The most recent annotations to the Commentaries, including ethics opinions and cases, are below:

Neither the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC) nor the Comments to them provide sufficiently explicit guidance regarding the professional responsibilities of lawyers engaged in a trusts and estates practice. Recognizing the need to fill this gap, ACTEC has developed the following Commentaries on selected rules to provide some particularized guidance to ACTEC Fellows and others regarding their professional responsibilities. The Commentaries may also assist courts, ethics committees and others concerned with issues regarding the professional responsibility of trusts and estates lawyers. Although the Commentaries refer specifically to the MRPC, their content is also usually applicable to the Code of Professional Responsibility, which remains in effect in some states and, like the MRPC, does not provide sufficient guidance to trusts and estates lawyers. The Commentaries generally seek to identify various ways in which common problems can be dealt with, without expressly mandating or prohibiting particular conduct by trusts and estates lawyers. While the Commentaries are intended to provide general guidance, ACTEC recognizes and respects the wide variation in the rules, decisions, and ethics opinions adopted by the several jurisdictions with respect to many of these subjects.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
REPORTER’S NOTE
First Edition

REPORTER’S NOTE
Second Edition

REPORTER’S NOTE
Third Edition

REPORTER’S NOTE
Fourth Edition

INTRODUCTION

Jurisdictions That Have Adopted the Model Rules of Professional Conduct

Caveat to Annotations

COMMENTARIES

MRPC 1.0: Terminology ACTEC Commentary on MRPC 1.0MRPC 1.1: CompetenceACTEC Commentary on MRPC 1.1MRPC 1.2: Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority Between Client and LawyerACTEC Commentary on MRPC 1.2MRPC 1.3: DiligenceACTEC Commentary on MRPC 1.3MRPC 1.4: Communication ACTEC Commentary on MRPC 1.4MRPC 1.5: Fees ACTEC Commentary on MRPC 1.5MRPC 1.6: Confidentiality of InformationACTEC Commentary on MRPC 1.6MRPC 1.7: Conflict of Interest: Current ClientsACTEC Commentary on MRPC 1.7
MRPC 1.8: Conflict of Interest: Current Clients: Specific RulesACTEC Commentary on MRPC 1.8
MRPC 1.9: Duties to Former ClientsACTEC Commentary on MRPC 1.9MRPC 1.13: Organization as ClientACTEC Commentary on MRPC 1.13MRPC 1.14: Client With Diminished Capacity ACTEC Commentary on MRPC 1.14MRPC 1.15: DeletedMRPC 1.16: Declining or Terminating RepresentationACTEC Commentary on MRPC 1.16MRPC 1.18: Duties to Prospective ClientACTEC Commentary on MRPC 1.18MRPC 2.1: Advisor ACTEC Commentary on MRPC 2.1MRPC 2.3: Evaluation for Use by Third PersonsACTEC Commentary on MRPC 2.3MRPC 3.3: Candor toward the TribunalACTEC Commentary on MRPC 3.3MRPC 3.7: Lawyer as WitnessACTEC Commentary on MRPC 3.7MRPC 4.1: Truthfulness in Statements to OthersACTEC Commentary on MRPC 4.1MRPC 4.3: Dealing with Unrepresented PersonACTEC Commentary on MRPC 4.3MRPC 5.5: Unauthorized Practice of Law; Multijurisdictional Practice of LawACTEC Commentary on MRPC 5.5
REPORTER’S NOTE
First Edition
The following Commentaries build upon the substantial body of prior writings by numerous authors, including Luther Avery, Jackson Bruce, Gerald Johnston, Jeff Pennell and Ronald Link. Their contributions have enriched the literature and sharpened our sensibilities. While acknowledging their contributions, we hasten to add that they are in no way responsible for the organization or content of the Commentaries.
Basic Themes of Commentaries. The main themes of the Commentaries are: (1) the relative freedom that lawyers and clients have to write their own charter with respect to a representation in the trusts and estates field; (2) the generally nonadversarial nature of the trusts and estates practice; (3) the utility and propriety, in this area of law, of representing multiple clients, whose interests may differ but are not necessarily adversarial; and (4) the opportunity, with full disclosure, to moderate or eliminate many problems that might otherwise arise under the MRPC. The Commentaries additionally reflect the role that the trusts and estates lawyer has traditionally played as the lawyer for members of a family. In that role a trusts and estates lawyer frequently represents the fiduciary of a trust or estate and one or more of the beneficiaries. In drafting the Commentaries we have attempted to express views that are consistent with the spirit of the MRPC as evidenced in the following passage: “The Rules of Professional Conduct are rules of reason. They should be interpreted with reference to the purposes of legal representation and of the law itself.” MRPC, Scope.
Scope of Representation. The Commentaries encourage a full discussion between lawyer and client of the scope and cost of the representation. Lawyers increasingly use engagement letters to cover these and other matters related to the representation. The trusts and estates practice is generally nonadversarial, client-centered and involves a high degree of client autonomy. The nature of the practice and the autonomy of clients allow lawyers and clients, including multiple clients, to define the scope and nature of the representation in ways that diminish the adverse effects that might otherwise flow from conflicts of interest. The Commentaries also note that while the representation of multiple clients by a single lawyer involves some risks, it often provides the clients with the most economical and effective representation--particularly where the clients are members of the same family. Finally, the Commentaries encourage lawyers to act in ways that promote the resolution of disputes without resort to the courts.
Duties of Trusts and Estates Lawyers Incompletely and Inconsistently Described. In large measure the duties of trusts and estates lawyers are defined in many states by opinions rendered in malpractice actions, which provide incomplete and insufficient guidance regarding the ethical duties of lawyers. Compounding the problem, the decisions in malpractice actions and the legal principles upon which they are based vary considerably from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Courts have perhaps had the most difficulty in defining the role and duties of the lawyer who represents a fiduciary in the fiduciary’s representative capacity with respect to a fiduciary estate (who might be said to represent the fiduciary generally). For example, in a malpractice action brought by the beneficiaries of a fiduciary estate against the lawyer for the fiduciary, a California appellate court stated that the lawyer owed no duty to the beneficiaries of the estate. Goldberg v. Frye, 266 Cal. Rptr. 483 (Cal. App. 1990); Other appellate courts have reached the opposite conclusion, including courts in California. Thus, in In re Estate of Halas, 512 N.E.2d 1276, 1280 (Ill. App. 1987), the court stated that, “The attorney for the executor, therefore, must act with due care and protect the interests of the beneficiaries”. Similarly, in Charleson v. Hardesty, 839 P.2d 1303 (Nev. 1992), the court wrote that the lawyer for a personal representative owes the beneficiaries “a duty of care and fiduciary duties.” Id. at 1307. See also Fickett v. Superior Court, 558 P.2d 988 (Ariz. App. 1976), in which the court held that the lawyer for the guardian owed a duty directly to the ward to protect the ward’s interests.
Lawyer for Fiduciary. Under the majority view, a lawyer who represents a fiduciary generally with respect to a fiduciary estate stands in a lawyer-client relationship with the fiduciary and not with respect to the fiduciary estate or the beneficiaries. In this connection note that a distinction should be drawn between the duties of a lawyer who represents a fiduciary in the fiduciary’s representative capacity (a “general” representation) and the duties of a lawyer who represents the fiduciary individually (i.e., not in a representative capacity). The distinction between the two types of representation is developed in the ACTEC Commentary on MRPC 1.2 (Scope of Representation [ and Allocation of Authority Between Client and Lawyer]). Unless otherwise indicated, all references in the Commentaries to “the lawyer for a fiduciary” are intended to be to a lawyer who represents a fiduciary generally and not to a lawyer who represents a fiduciary individually. Note also that under some circumstances a lawyer may properly represent the fiduciary and one or more of the beneficiaries. See ACTEC Commentary on MRPC 1.7 (Conflict of Interest: [Current Clients]) and Example 1.7-3.
Duties to Beneficiaries. The lawyer who represents a fiduciary generally is not usually considered also to represent the beneficiaries. However, most courts have concluded that the lawyer owes some duties to them. Some courts subject the lawyer to the duties because the beneficiaries are characterized as the lawyer’s “joint”, “derivative” or “secondary” clients. Other courts do so because the lawyer stands in a fiduciary relationship with respect to the fiduciary, who, in turn, owes fiduciary duties to the beneficiaries. The duties, commonly called “fiduciary duties”, arise largely because of the nature of the representation and the relative positions of the lawyer, fiduciary, and beneficiaries. However, note that the existence and nature of the duties may be affected by the nature and extent of the representation that a lawyer provides to a fiduciary. Thus, a lawyer who represents a fiduciary individually regarding a fiduciary estate may owe few, if any, duties to the beneficiaries apart from the duties that the lawyer owes to other non-clients. See ACTEC Commentaries on MRPCs 1.2 (Scope of Representation [and Allocation of Authority Between Client and Lawyer]) and 4.1 (Truthfulness in Statements to Others).
General Nature of Duties. Unfortunately, the duties that the lawyer for a fiduciary owes to the beneficiaries of the fiduciary estate have not been adequately identified, defined, or discussed. In general, the duties prohibit the lawyer from taking advantage of his or her position to the detriment of the fiduciary estate or its beneficiaries. Thus, the lawyer who represents a fiduciary is prohibited from making sales to, or purchases from, the fiduciary. In some jurisdictions the prohibition extends to transactions between the lawyer and the beneficiaries of the fiduciary estate. Indeed, in exceptional cases the lawyer for a fiduciary may be subject to the duties of the fiduciary. That approach was taken in a leading New York decision, In re Bond & Mortgage Guarantee Company, 103 N.E.2d 721 (N.Y. 1952). In that case the lawyers for a trustee for the holders of mortgage participation certificates were required to disgorge the increase in the value of certificates that the lawyers had purchased from third parties.
The attorneys, concededly in the same position as the trustee, owed an equally high degree of fidelity, and so both courts below held, the Appellate Division stating that, “by reason of their status as attorneys for the trustee, [they] were no less fiduciaries than was the trustee himself.” . . . Thus the attorneys, like the trustees, owed to these certificate holders “the duty of the finest loyalty”, “something stricter than the morals of the market place”. 103 N.E.2d at 725.
Good Faith, Fairness and Impartiality. The lawyer who represents a fiduciary generally is required to act in good faith and with fairness toward the beneficiaries. In addition, the lawyer should advise the fiduciary to act impartially with respect to the beneficiaries and to provide the beneficiaries with information regarding material matters affecting their interests in the fiduciary estate. Consistent with the provisions of the MRPC, especially MRPC 4.1 (Truthfulness in Statements to Others), the lawyer may not deliberately misinform or mislead the beneficiaries or withhold information from them. See ACTEC Commentary on MRPC 1.2 (Scope of Representation [and Allocation of Authority Between Client and Lawyer]).
Affirmative Duties to Beneficiaries. The duties that the lawyer who represents a fiduciary generally owes to the beneficiaries are largely restrictive in nature (i.e., ones that impose limitations upon the conduct of the lawyer). However, in some circumstances the lawyer may owe some affirmative duties to the beneficiaries. Thus, the lawyer for a fiduciary may be required to take affirmative steps to protect the interests of the beneficiaries if the lawyer learns that the fiduciary is engaged in acts of self-dealing, is embezzling assets of the fiduciary estate, or is engaged in other wrongdoing. In some cases it may be appropriate for the lawyer to disclose the misconduct to the beneficiaries or to the court. If the local rules do not permit disclosure in such cases, it may be appropriate for the lawyer to resign with notice to the beneficiaries.
The existence of such affirmative duties is implicit in the nature of the representation, which involves the lawyer advising the fiduciary in a representative and not a personal capacity. Recognition of such duties is also supported by the fact that the fiduciary estate is almost invariably created by a testator or trustor for the exclusive benefit of the beneficiaries. In addition, the fiduciary and the lawyer are both compensated by the fiduciary estate. Finally, recognition of some affirmative duties is also appropriate because the lawyer for a fiduciary is typically in a superior position relative to the beneficiaries, who may repose trust and confidence in the lawyer.
Throughout the Commentaries, when the word “may” is used in referring to a lawyer’s duties, obligations and authorizations to disclose, the intent is to indicate that the duties, obligations and authorizations may exist in some jurisdictions but not in others.
Annotations. The Annotations that follow each Commentary include references to a broad sampling of the cases, ethics opinions and articles that deal with the professional responsibility of the trust and estates lawyer but are by no means exhaustive. Reflecting various approaches taken in different jurisdictions, the cases and ethics opinions are often inconsistent and cannot be harmonized. The summaries of the cases and ethics opinions are not part of the Commentaries. They are included for illustrative purposes only and do not necessarily reflect the judgment of the reporter or ACTEC regarding the issues involved.
October 1993
John R. Price,
Professor of Law,
University of Washington, Reporter

Bruce S. Ross,
Chair, ACTEC Professional Standards Committee (1990-1994)

REPORTER’S NOTE
Second Edition
“The existing ethics codes merely espouse certain general principles that apply to all lawyers, such as you don’t co-mingle a client’s funds with your own. They do not provide enough fact specific provisions that apply directly to many of the various legal specialties.” Judge Stanley Sporkin, The Need for Separate Codes of Professional Conduct for the Various Specialties, 7 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 149 (1993).
Judge Sporkin focuses on the principal problem posed by the Model Rules of Professional Conduct (MRPC): It is composed largely of general, litigation-based rules that do not address many of the difficult problems that arise in specific areas of practice. Rather than recognize the need to consider ways in which the MRPC might be adapted to meet the needs of lawyers in specific practice areas, the American Bar Association appears to insist that one rule fits all-- without regard to any differences in the nature of a client and the type of representation provided. The ABA’s position is illustrated by ABA Formal Opinion 94-380 (1994), which held that Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality of Information) prohibited the lawyer for a fiduciary from disclosing fraudulent or criminal conduct on the part of the fiduciary. According to the ABA, Rule 1.6 overrides the other duties of the lawyer: “The client’s status [as fiduciary] is irrelevant.”
Anticipating and Avoiding Conflicts. This edition of the ACTEC Commentaries continues to emphasize the advantages to clients and lawyers of anticipating and attempting to avoid potential problems under the MRPC. Estate planners not infrequently encounter difficult problems of professional responsibility, particularly ones involving confidentiality and conflicts of interest. Serious problems can often be reduced or eliminated by advance discussion and planning. In particular, in many instances uncertainties regarding the lawyer’s duty of confidentiality can be eliminated with sufficient advance planning and consent. Disclosure and agreement may also allow the same lawyer to represent the interests of multiple parties who have somewhat conflicting interests, but not clients whose interests are seriously adverse, such as adverse parties in litigation.
Other Sources of Guidance. A special committee of the Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Section of the American Bar Association chaired by Malcolm Moore has produced thoughtful and helpful Reports on three topics: Comments and Recommendations on the Lawyer’s Duties in Representing Husband and Wife; Preparation of Wills and Trusts that Name Drafting Lawyer as Fiduciary; and Counseling the Fiduciary. These Reports and the initial edition of the ACTEC Commentaries are published in the winter 1994 issue of the Real Property, Probate and Trust Journal, Volume 28, Number 4. In addition, the American Law Institute is working on the Restatement, Law Governing Lawyers, portions of which have appeared in draft form. We hope the Restatement will, in its final form, provide useful specific guidance both to estates and trusts lawyers and to lawyers in other fields of law.
This edition of the ACTEC Commentaries also includes additional annotations including several malpractice decisions, some of which hold that the lawyer for a fiduciary owes no duties in tort or contract to the beneficiaries of the fiduciary estate. Included in the latter category are Spinner v. Nutt, 631 N.E.2d 542 (Mass. 1994) and Trask v. Butler, 872 P.2d 1080 (Wash. 1994).
Since their adoption the ACTEC Commentaries have provided guidance to individual lawyers and law firms and have been used in instructional programs at law schools and in programs of continuing legal education. In addition, some portions have been proposed for adoption in various states. This edition represents a continuing effort to refine and improve the content of the ACTEC Commentaries for the benefit of the bar, bench and public.
The original edition of the ACTEC Commentaries was prepared with the capable assistance of Berrie Martinis, a member of the class of 1994 at the University of Washington School of Law. This edition was prepared with the equally capable assistance of Catherine Baytion, a member of the class of 1995 at the University of Washington School of Law. Sincere thanks to them both and to the librarians at the University of Washington whose dedication to professionalism and public service is legendary.
March 1995
John R. Price,
Professor of Law,
University of Washington,
Reporter

J. Michael Farley,
Chair, ACTEC Professional Standards Committee
(1994-1997)

Bruce S. Ross,
Chair, ACTEC Commentaries Update Subcommittee

REPORTER’S NOTE
Third Edition
This Edition of the ACTEC Commentaries, following by six years the original publication of the Commentaries and four years after publication of the Second Edition, builds incrementally upon the prior Editions. The ACTEC Commentaries continue to receive widespread acceptance and increasing citation by the courts, secondary authorities and members of the legal profession. The most significant changes in this Edition include new Commentaries discussing MRPC 1.16 (Declining or Terminating Representation) and MRPC 3.7 (Lawyer as Witness). Also, this Edition includes a Table of Authorities (broken down by state). As with the Second Edition, the Annotations have been greatly expanded and continue to expand to reflect new decisions, ethics opinions and the like.
A Note re Ethics 2000: The American Bar Association Commission on Evaluation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, popularly known as “Ethics 2000,” under the chairmanship of Chief Justice E. Norman Veasey, is in the midst of an intensive analysis and reevaluation of all of the Model Rules of Professional Conduct and will be proposing extensive revisions and modifications of the MRPC. Much of the Commission’s work product, although in draft form only, is now available online at its website, http://www.abanet.org/ethics2k. If the Commission’s final work product is adopted by the American Bar Association, significant changes to such key Rules as 1.4 (Communication), 1.6 (Confidentiality of Information), 1.7 (Conflict of Interest: General Rule), and 1.8 (Conflict of Interest: Prohibited Transactions) may be anticipated, and some new Rules may come into existence. Preliminary suggestions and recommendations for changes in the MRPC endorsed by the Commission suggest a positive response to the long-stated concerns of ACTEC and the ABA’s Real Property, Probate and Trust Law Section that the present MRPC do not adequately address concerns specific to different specialties in the profession, including the estates and trusts area. The next edition of the ACTEC Commentaries will include appropriate references to and the text of those Rules relevant to the estates and trusts practice that are modified or newly adopted by the ABA following submission of the Ethics 2000 Commission’s final report and recommendations.
This Third Edition reflects ACTEC’s continuing commitment to refine and improve the contents of the ACTEC Commentaries and to maintain their relevance to the bench, the bar and the general public which all courts and lawyers serve.
June 1999
Bruce S. Ross,
Reporter for the Third Edition

Jack G. Charney,
Chair, ACTEC Professional Standards Committee (1997-2000)

REPORTER’S NOTE
Fourth Edition
This Fourth Edition of the ACTEC Commentaries continues the tradition of providing particularized guidance to estate and trust practitioners on the Model Rules of Professional Conduct. In particular, the Fourth Edition focuses on amendments to the Model Rules promulgated by the American Bar Association Commission on Evaluation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, commonly known as the “Ethics 2000 Commission,” almost all of whose recommendations were adopted in the revised MRPC. New Model Rules with Commentaries include MRPC 1.0 (Terminology) and MRPC 1.18 (Duties to Prospective Client). Significant changes to the Commentaries have been made for the following amended Model Rules: MRPC 1.2 (Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority between Client and Lawyer); MRPC 1.4 (Communication); MRPC 1.5 (Fees); MRPC 1.6 (Confidentiality of Information); MRPC 1.7 (Conflict of Interest: Current Clients); and MRPC 1.8 (Conflict of Interest: Current Clients: Specific Rules). Another area revised by Ethics 2000 was MRPC 1.14 (Representation of the Client with Diminished Capacity), and the Fourth Edition reflects these changes as well.
In addition to Ethics 2000, the ABA created the Commission on Multijurisdictional Practice. As part of its work, this Commission adopted a revised MRPC 5.5. The revised rule addresses what has been commonly referred to as the “multijurisdictional practice of law”. The revised rule establishes safe harbors in which a lawyer may practice in a jurisdiction where the lawyer is not admitted to practice law without violating that jurisdiction’s unlawful practice of law provisions. The Fourth Edition provides guidance for estate and trust practitioners concerning the use of these safe harbors in a multijurisdictional estate and trust practice.
New court decisions, ethics opinions and articles concerning the estate and trust legal practice have been included in the Annotations published with the Fourth Edition. As in prior editions, the selected annotations are intended to be illustrative only and are not exhaustive. The Annotations are not to be treated as part of the Commentaries.
As Reporters, we thank the many who contributed to the Fourth Edition, but give special acknowledgment to Professor Charles Rounds, Jr. and to all members of the Professional Responsibility Committee of ACTEC for their efforts on this project. We also express appreciation to John Price, the Reporter for the First Edition and Co-Reporter for the Second Edition, and Bruce Ross, Co-Reporter for the Second Edition and Reporter for the Third Edition, for assistance with the editing of the Fourth Edition. Finally, we commend the ACTEC Foundation for its ongoing support of the ACTEC Commentaries which provide important guidance to the bench, bar and public sector.
December 30, 2004
Charles M. Bennett
Co-Reporter for the Fourth Edition

Cynda C. Ottaway
Co-Reporter for the Fourth Edition
Chair, Professional Responsibility Committee

INTRODUCTION
Excerpts from Preamble
As a representative of clients, a lawyer performs various functions. As advisor, a lawyer provides a client with an informed understanding of the client’s legal rights and obligations and explains their practical implications. As advocate, a lawyer zealously asserts the client’s position under the rules of the adversary system. As negotiator, a lawyer seeks a result advantageous to the client but consistent with requirements of honest dealings with others. As an evaluator, a lawyer acts by examining a client’s legal affairs and reporting about them to the client or to others.
* * * * *
In the nature of law practice, however, conflicting responsibilities are encountered. Virtually all difficult ethical problems arise from conflict between a lawyer’s responsibilities to clients, to the legal system and to the lawyer’s own interest in remaining an ethical person while earning a satisfactory living. The Rules of Professional Conduct often prescribe terms for resolving such conflicts. Within the framework of these Rules, however, many difficult issues of professional discretion can arise. Such issues must be resolved through the exercise of sensitive professional and moral judgment guided by the basic principles underlying the Rules.
Excerpts from Scope
The Rules of Professional Conduct are rules of reason. They should be interpreted with reference to the purposes of legal representation and of the law itself. Some of the Rules are imperatives, cast in the terms “shall” or “shall not.” These define proper conduct for purposes of professional discipline. Others, generally cast in the term “may,” are permissive and define areas under the Rules in which the lawyer has discretion to exercise professional judgment. No disciplinary action should be taken when the lawyer chooses not to act or acts within the bounds of such discretion. . . . Many of the Comments use the term “should.” Comments do not add obligations to the Rules but provide guidance for practicing in compliance with the Rules.
* * * * *
Violation of a Rule should not itself give rise to a cause of action against a lawyer nor should it create any presumption in such a case that a legal duty has been breached. In addition, violation of a Rule does not necessarily warrant any other nondisciplinary remedy, such as disqualification of a lawyer in pending litigation. The Rules are designed to provide guidance to lawyers and to provide a structure for regulating conduct through disciplinary agencies. They are not designed to be a basis for civil liability.
JURISDICTIONS THAT HAVE ADOPTED THE MODEL RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
Forty-six states, the District of Columbia, and the Virgin Islands have adopted the MRPC, often with significant modifications. In addition, one state (New York) amended its version of the Model Code to reflect certain Model Rules provisions. One state, California, did not originally base its Rules of Professional Conduct on the Model Code and declined to base the 1989 revision of its Rules on the MRPC. The following jurisdictions have adopted the MRPC, often with state-specific amendments, with the effective dates shown:
  Alabama January 1, 1991
Alaska July 15, 1993
Arizona February 1, 1985
Arkansas January 1, 1986
Colorado January 1, 1993
Connecticut October 1, 1986
Delaware October 1, 1985
District of Columbia January 1, 1991
Florida January 1, 1987
Georgia June 12, 2000
Hawaii January 1, 1995
Idaho November 1, 1986
Illinois August 1, 1990
Indiana January 1, 1987
Iowa[*] April 20, 2005
Kansas March 1, 1988
Kentucky January 1, 1990
Louisiana January 1, 1987
Maryland January 1, 1987
Massachusetts January 1, 1998
Michigan October 1, 1988
Minnesota September 1, 1985
Mississippi July 1, 1987
Missouri January 1, 1986
Montana July 1, 1985
Nebraska[*] June 8, 2005
Nevada March 28, 1986
New Hampshire February 1, 1986
New Jersey September 10, 1984
New Mexico January 1, 1987
North Carolina October 7, 1985
North Dakota January 1, 1988
Oklahoma July 1, 1988
Oregon[*] January 1, 2005
Pennsylvania April 1, 1988
Rhode Island November 15, 1988
South Carolina September 1, 1990
South Dakota July 1, 1988
Tennessee[*] August 27, 2002
Texas January 1, 1990
Utah January 1, 1988
Vermont March 9, 1999
Virgin Islands January 28, 1991
Virginia January 25, 1999
Washington September 1, 1985
West Virginia January 1, 1989
Wisconsin January 1, 1988
Wyoming January 12, 1987
[*] These states adopted the MRPC for the first time after the ABA’s 2002 revisions to the Model Rules.
CAVEAT TO ANNOTATIONS
Limiting the Scope and Purpose of the Annotations
The Annotations that follow each Commentary include references to a broad (but not exhaustive) range of cases, ethics opinions and secondary authorities that deal with the professional responsibility of trusts and estates lawyers. Reflecting various approaches taken in different jurisdictions, the cases and ethics opinions are often inconsistent and cannot be harmonized. The summaries of the cases and ethics opinions are not part of the Commentaries. They are included for illustrative purposes only and do not necessarily reflect the judgment of the Reporters or ACTEC regarding the issues involved.

Home | About Us |  Fellows | Membership |  Publications | Foundation | Fellow Login | Media | Contact Us
© 2013, The American College of Trust and Estate Counsel. All rights reserved.
Webmaster | Terms of Use and Disclaimers