Does Rule 4.2 Require Attorney To Confirm Termination Of Prior Counsel?

The Indiana Supreme Court has imposed a public reprimand of an attorney on these stipulated facts

Following E.G.’s death, “Attorney” was retained by F.G., the personal representative of E.G.’s estate, to handle the supervised estate. Believing E.G. might still be owed wages, Attorney later filed suit on the estate’s behalf against E.G.’s former employer to recover proof of E.G.’s wages or deferment. Respondent appeared in the wage suit on the former employer’s behalf.

Soon thereafter, F.G. began demanding dismissal of the wage suit, and Attorney gave F.G. ten days’ notice that she intended to withdraw her appearance on behalf of the estate. Before Attorney withdrew, F.G. approached Respondent and engaged in discussions about the supervised estate and the wage suit. F.G. told Respondent that Attorney was no longer representing him, but Respondent failed to independently confirm this. After Attorney withdrew, Respondent appeared on the estate’s behalf in the supervised estate. At this point, Respondent was representing both the estate and E.G.’s former employer, who were direct adversaries in the same related litigation.

The attorney stipulated to violations of Rules 1.7 (concurrent conflict of interest) and 4.2 (unauthorized communication with represented person).

While this is a stipulated disposition and presumably of limited precedential value, I respectfully question the Rule 4.2 violation where the person says they have dismissed counsel.

Not sure where the “duty to confirm” with presumably discharged counsel comes from although I always advise attorneys in this position that confirmation is a good idea.

Any thoughts readers? (Mike Frisch)