Model Rule 1.4: Communications
Rule 1.4 requires lawyers to keep clients reasonably informed about their matter and to promptly respond to reasonable requests for information. It also requires lawyers to explain matters sufficiently so that the client can make informed decisions about the representation. The rule is about the flow of communication between lawyer and client, not about the substance of legal advice itself.
When it applies
This rule comes up whenever a lawyer fails to relay a settlement offer, ignores client phone calls or emails, or makes a strategic decision without consulting the client first. On the MPRE, it's tested alongside Rule 1.2 to distinguish who decides what (client's objectives vs. lawyer's means) from the separate duty to actually communicate those decisions and options.
What the rule requires
- Promptly inform the client of any decision requiring the client's informed consent
- Reasonably consult with the client about how to accomplish the client's objectives
- Keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter
- Comply promptly with reasonable requests for information
- Inform the client if the lawyer knows the client expects assistance not permitted by the rules or law
- Explain matters to the extent reasonably necessary for the client to make informed decisions
Exceptions
- A lawyer may delay transmitting information if the client would be likely to react imprudently to an immediate communication, but only in limited circumstances such as certain mental health contexts
- Withholding information is otherwise not permitted merely because the lawyer thinks it is in the client's best interest
How the MPRE tests Model Rule 1.4
- Students confuse the duty to promptly communicate settlement offers (required unless the client has already indicated the offer would be acceptable or unacceptable, or has authorized the lawyer to accept or reject it) with the lawyer's authority to accept them (client's decision under 1.2)
- Questions test whether silence about a missed deadline or mistake violates 1.4 even absent bad faith — it does, since the duty is about keeping the client informed, not just honesty
- MPRE facts may show a lawyer making a 'reasonable' unilateral decision on tactics; students must distinguish means (lawyer can decide after consultation) from objectives (client decides) under the 1.2/1.4 interplay
- Failing to explain risks in enough detail for informed consent can violate 1.4 even if the underlying action was otherwise permissible
Example
A lawyer receives a settlement offer from opposing counsel but decides it's too low and rejects it without telling the client, believing the client would want to proceed to trial anyway. This violates Rule 1.4 because the lawyer failed to promptly inform the client of a decision requiring the client's informed consent, regardless of the lawyer's good-faith judgment about the offer's value.
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.