example, he or she should make clear that the attorney is providing general education and not guidance on a specific matter; that the attorney does not have an attorney-client relationship with anyone in the audience and in fact might be adverse to someone who violates the rules; that the communications in the educational sessions are not in any way subject to the attorney-client privilege; that individuals should seek their own counsel as needed; and that the Century Code provides mechanisms for obtaining formal guidance.
These considerations are not intended to be all-encompassing. The overriding concern of this committee is that any attorney providing the kind of training described above should make clear his or her specific role in the communications in order to minimize the risk that an unrepresented person may misunderstand the situation and thereby be prejudiced.
A lawyer who acts with good faith and reasonable reliance on a written opinion or advisory letter of the ethics committee of the association is not subject to sanction for violation of the North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct as to the conduct that is the subject of the opinion or advisory letter.
1 The Committee notes an opinion of the Kentucky Bar Association( Ethics Opinion KBA E-445) which arguably impacts this analysis. However, that opinion differs from the scenario here, because the issue presented there involved answering questions from the public as to specific instances. The request here seeks guidance only as to general educational presentations. The ethical implications of answering specific questions about a particular case, rather than general guidance on the rules, is outside the scope of this opinion. However, the guidance of the Kentucky Bar Association that lawyers may answer questions so long as they make their roles clear is consistent with the advice given here.
Please note this opinion does not address instances in which an attorney is acting as counsel for the Ethics Commission in a specific manner, including( but not necessarily limited to) when investigating a complaint, advising the Ethics Commission with respect to a complaint, or representing the Ethics Commission in a contested proceeding as contemplated by N. D. Cent. Code § 54- 66-14. This opinion also does not address instances in which an attorney works with the Ethics Commission to give advisory opinions on specific situations as contemplated by N. D. Cent. Code § 54-66-04.2.1 All of the foregoing activities are outside the scope of the requested guidance, which is limited to“ providing educational information about Commission practices, procedures, and rules to various groups of North Dakota citizens [.]” When acting as counsel for the Ethics Commission on specific matters, any attorney has the same duties as other lawyers for government agencies, which are not addressed here.
This opinion was drafted by Michael S. Raum and was approved by the Ethics Committee on the 10th day of March, 2025.
This opinion is provided under Rule l. 2( B), North Dakota Rules for Lawyer Discipline, which states:
SPRING 2025 33