Is a lawyer who routinely fails to return a client's phone calls acting improperly?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1975. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current New York Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The committee was asked whether a lawyer who regularly fails to respond to telephone calls from clients, as a course of conduct, acts improperly. It concluded that consistent failure to respond violates Canons 6 and 9. The committee treated it as axiomatic that the client has an absolute and continuing right to reasonable access to counsel on the matter for which the lawyer was retained, and observed that a lawyer's failure to respond, while not necessarily so, may well indicate that the lawyer has failed to properly prosecute, defend, or handle the matter.
The committee tied the duty to EC 9-1, which concerns the lawyer's obligation to promote public confidence in the legal system and to maintain an open lawyer-client relationship, including keeping the client informed of the status of the matter. It qualified the duty: a lawyer need not repetitively respond to clients who unreasonably and repetitiously demand status updates on a more than regular basis.
Finally, the committee linked responsiveness to the duty of competent representation under Canon 6, reasoning that once a lawyer undertakes a representation, the obligation to prepare adequately and give appropriate attention to the work necessarily requires responding to the client's calls to stay reasonably apprised of changes and to keep the client advised of the matter's progress.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1975, before New York replaced the Code of Professional Responsibility with the Rules of Professional Conduct in 2009; the duty to keep a client reasonably informed and respond to reasonable requests for information is now in Rule 1.4, and competence in Rule 1.1. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.
Common questions
Q: Is ignoring a client's phone calls an ethics violation?
A: Under this opinion, a course of conduct of failing to respond to a client's calls is improper. The committee grounded this in the client's continuing right to reasonable access to counsel (Canons 6 and 9; EC 9-1).
Q: Does a lawyer have to answer every single call?
A: Per the opinion, no. The committee said a lawyer need not respond repetitively to clients who unreasonably and repetitiously demand status updates on a more than regular basis.
Q: How did the committee connect responsiveness to competence?
A: It reasoned that adequate preparation and attention to the matter under Canon 6 require the lawyer to take the client's calls to stay apprised of changes and to keep the client advised of progress.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied Canon 6 (competent representation), Canon 9 (public confidence in the profession), and EC 9-1 of the then-current New York Code. The current analogues are Rule 1.4 (communication, including the duty to respond to reasonable requests for information) and Rule 1.1 (competence). The opinion framed responsiveness as a component of both the lawyer-client relationship and competent handling of the matter.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- MR 1.4 (communication)
- MR 1.1 (competence)
- NY Canon 6; Canon 9; EC 9-1
See also
Source
- Landing page: https://nysba.org/opinion-396/
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1975 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current New York Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.