Model Rule 2.4: Lawyer Serving as Third-Party Neutral

When it applies

This comes up when a lawyer serves as a mediator, arbitrator, or other neutral facilitator in a dispute, often between parties who may not have their own counsel. On the MPRE, it tests whether students understand that acting as a neutral does not create a client-lawyer relationship and triggers a disclosure duty to unrepresented parties.

What the rule requires

• When the lawyer-neutral knows or reasonably should know that a party does not understand the lawyer's role, the lawyer must explain how serving as a neutral differs from representing a client.
• When one or more participants are unrepresented, the lawyer-neutral must explain that the lawyer is not representing them.
• The neutral role does not by itself create a client-lawyer relationship with any participant.
• Rule 2.4 itself does not set standards of impartiality or neutral conduct. Those obligations may come from court rules, other law, or codes of ethics for mediators and arbitrators that apply to the lawyer-neutral.

How the MPRE tests Model Rule 2.4

• Students often assume serving as a mediator automatically creates attorney-client duties (like confidentiality under 1.6) toward the parties; it does not, absent a separate representation.
• MPRE questions may test whether the lawyer-neutral can later represent one of the parties in the same or a related matter, which implicates Rule 1.12, not 2.4 itself.
• Test-takers may overlook that the disclosure duty specifically applies to unrepresented parties, not represented ones.