Model Rule 1.2: Scope of Representation and Allocation of Authority Between Client and Lawyer
Rule 1.2 divides decision-making power between lawyer and client: the client controls the goals/objectives of the representation (like whether to settle, what plea to enter, whether to testify) while the lawyer controls the means and strategy for pursuing those goals, subject to client consultation. It also limits a lawyer from assisting a client in conduct the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, while still allowing the lawyer to discuss the legal consequences of proposed conduct.
When it applies
This rule comes up whenever there's a dispute over who gets to decide something in a case—settlement offers, plea bargains, whether to appeal, or the scope of the engagement itself—and it's tested heavily on the MPRE for distinguishing client-reserved decisions from lawyer-reserved tactical decisions. It also appears in questions about limited-scope representation and about a lawyer's duty to refuse assistance with illegal schemes.
What the rule requires
- Client decides the objectives of representation, including whether to accept a settlement offer in a civil case.
- In criminal cases, the client alone decides the plea, whether to waive jury trial, and whether to testify.
- Lawyer decides the means of carrying out representation, but must reasonably consult with the client about how to pursue objectives.
- A lawyer may limit the scope of representation if the limitation is reasonable under the circumstances and the client gives informed consent.
- A lawyer shall not counsel or assist a client in conduct the lawyer knows is criminal or fraudulent, though the lawyer may discuss the legal consequences of any proposed course of conduct and may help the client determine the validity/scope of a law in good faith.
Exceptions
- A lawyer's representation of a client, including in criminal or controversial matters, does not constitute the lawyer's endorsement of the client's views or activities.
- Limited-scope representation is permitted if reasonable and the client gives informed consent, even though it narrows the lawyer's normal duties.
- A lawyer may counsel a client about the legal consequences of any proposed action, and may assist in a good-faith effort to test the validity or scope of a law, even if that borders on disputed legality.
How the MPRE tests Model Rule 1.2
- Students confuse who decides 'objectives' vs 'means'—e.g., thinking the lawyer decides whether to settle, when that's the client's call.
- Forgetting the three client-exclusive decisions in criminal cases (plea, jury trial waiver, testify) and treating them as lawyer strategy calls.
- Assuming any limited-scope agreement is automatically valid without checking that it's reasonable and supported by informed consent.
- Misreading 'knows' as 'suspects'—Rule 1.2 only bars assisting conduct the lawyer actually knows is criminal/fraudulent, not merely questionable conduct. But under Rule 1.0, actual knowledge can be inferred from the circumstances, so a lawyer cannot escape the rule by ignoring obvious signs of fraud.
Example
A client facing a civil suit tells her attorney she wants to accept a settlement offer, but the attorney believes trial would yield more money and refuses to convey the offer's acceptance. This violates Rule 1.2 because the decision to settle belongs to the client, not the lawyer, even if the lawyer disagrees on strategic grounds.
Related rules
On the MPRE
A plain-English summary of the ABA Model Rule, not the rule text. Your jurisdiction's version of the rule controls in practice.