Model Rule 2.1: Advisor
Rule 2.1 tells lawyers how to function as advisors rather than just advocates: in giving advice, a lawyer must exercise independent professional judgment and give candid, honest advice about a client's legal situation. It also permits lawyers to go beyond narrow legal analysis and reference other considerations like moral, economic, social, or political factors when relevant to the client's situation.
When it applies
This rule comes up whenever a lawyer is counseling a client on a course of action, especially when the client wants to hear only what they want to hear or when the advice touches on non-legal consequences of a decision. On the MPRE, it's tested through scenarios where a lawyer either sugarcoats bad news, fails to mention obvious risks, or is questioned for bringing up practical/moral considerations beyond strict legal analysis.
What the rule requires
- Exercise independent professional judgment when advising a client
- Render candid advice, meaning the lawyer must tell the client the truth about legal prospects even if unwelcome
- Advice may refer to relevant moral, economic, social, and political factors that bear on the client's situation
- The lawyer's independent judgment must not be compromised by what the client wants to hear or by the lawyer's own financial interest
Exceptions
- A lawyer generally is not expected to volunteer advice until the client asks, but under Rule 1.4 the lawyer may need to offer advice without being asked, for example when the lawyer knows the client plans a course of action related to the representation that is likely to cause the client substantial adverse legal consequences
- When a competent lawyer would recommend consulting a professional in another field (e.g., an accountant or financial adviser), the comments to Rule 2.1 indicate the lawyer should make that recommendation
How the MPRE tests Model Rule 2.1
- Students assume advice must be strictly legal and mistakenly think mentioning moral or economic factors violates the rule, when the rule actually permits this
- Confusing 'candid advice' with a duty to volunteer advice on unrelated matters -- the duty is to be honest within the scope of representation, not to give unsolicited advice on everything
- Overlapping fact patterns with Rule 1.4 (communication) or Rule 1.2 (scope of representation) -- MPRE questions test whether you know 2.1 governs the quality/candor of advice, not the client's decision-making authority
- Mistaking candid advice for a requirement to only tell clients what they want to hear -- the rule requires honesty even when it disappoints the client
Example
A client asks her lawyer whether to accept a settlement offer, and the lawyer believes the offer is fair given the weaknesses in the client's case. Even though the client clearly wants to hear that she should hold out for more, the lawyer must give candid advice explaining the risks of rejecting the offer, satisfying Rule 2.1's duty of honest, independent counsel.
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.