2026-02 | Office of Legal Ethics Counsel & Advisory Committee of the Supreme Court of Missouri

Back to Search



Informal Opinion Number: 2026-02

Adoption Date: April 21, 2026

Rules: 4–4.2

Transactions With Persons Other Than Clients

Dealing With Persons Represented By Counsel

Subject: Communication with Represented Persons; Divorce/Dissolution

Summary: communication with represented party when lawyer is a party to the dispute

Question: Lawyer is divorcing Spouse. Lawyer is pro se in the dissolution. Spouse is represented by counsel. Lawyer and Spouse had reached an informal agreement about the division of property before filing the dissolution action. Lawyer and Spouse continue to reside together while the dissolution is ongoing. Spouse discussed with Lawyer repairs needed at the marital home and payment for the repairs. Spouse initiated the conversation. After Lawyer spoke with Spouse regarding the repairs, Spouse’s lawyer advised Lawyer that all communications concerning the dissolution should be made through Spouse’s lawyer. As a party, Lawyer believes Lawyer has a right to communicate directly with spouse. Lawyer bases this belief upon a reading of Rule 4 dash–4.2 and Comment [4] to the Rule. Rule 4 dash–4.2 prohibits a lawyer who “is representing a client” from directly communicating about the subject of the representation with any other represented party. Comment [4] to the Rule provides that parties may communicate directly with each other.

Is Lawyer correct in the interpretation of the rule and its comment? Is the interpretation the same, regardless of whether Lawyer is pro se or Lawyer has engaged counsel to represent Lawyer?

Answer 1: No, Lawyer’s interpretation is incorrect. Interpretation of the Rule and Comment [4] require consideration of both the Rule’s plain language and the policy purposes behind the Rule. The Rule protects a represented person against overreaching by other lawyers, interference with the client-lawyer relationship, and the uncounseled disclosure of information relating to the representation. See Comment [1] to Rule 4 dash–4.2. Direct communications between a represented party and a pro se lawyer create the same risks that Rule 4 dash–4.2 was designed to prevent. So, the pro se Lawyer is considered “self-representing” or, i.e., “representing a client,” and direct communication with the spouse regarding the dissolution is prohibited. See Informal Opinion 2011 dash–03. This is true even if Spouse initiated or consented to the communication. See Comment [3] to Rule 4 dash–4.2.

Answer 2: The same risks exist with direct communications for the represented party regardless of whether Lawyer is pro se or has counsel. Consequently, Rule 4 dash–4.2 prohibits direct communication between the parties unless counsel for the parties consent to direct communications or the communication is authorized by law or court order

Informal Opinions are ethics advisory opinions issued by the Office of Legal Ethics Counsel to members of the Bar about Rule 4 (Rules of Professional Conduct), Rule 5 (Complaints and Proceedings Thereon), and Rule 6 (Fees to Practice Law) pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 5.30(c). Written summaries of select Informal Opinions are published for informational purposes as determined by the Advisory Committee of the Supreme Court of Missouri pursuant to Rule 5.30(c). Informal opinion summaries are advisory in nature and are not binding. These opinions are published as an educational service and do not constitute legal advice.

Request an Informal Opinion.