N.J. Ct. R. app 3 R. R. 4.2

As amended through July 30, 2021
Rule 4.2 - Communication with Person Represented by Counsel

In representing a client, a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows, or by the exercise of reasonable diligence should know, to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, including members of an organization's litigation control group as defined by RPC 1.13, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer, or is authorized by law or court order to do so, or unless the sole purpose of the communication is to ascertain whether the person is in fact represented. Reasonable diligence shall include, but not be limited to, a specific inquiry of the person as to whether that person is represented by counsel. Nothing in this rule shall, however, preclude a lawyer from counseling or representing a member or former member of an organization's litigation control group who seeks independent legal advice.

N.J. Ct. R. app 3 R. R. 4.2

Adopted September 10, 1984, to be effective immediately; amended June 28, 1996, to be effective September 1, 1996; amended November 17, 2003 to be effective January 1, 2004.

Official Comment by Supreme Court (November 17, 2003)

Concerning organizations, RPC 4.2 addresses the issue of who is represented under the rule by precluding a lawyer from communicating with members of the organization's litigation control group. The term "litigation control group" is not intended to limit application of the rule to matters in litigation. As the Report of the Special Committee on RPC 4.2 states, "... the 'matter' has been defined as a 'matter whether or not in litigation.'" The primary determinant of membership in the litigation control group is the person's role in determining the organization's legal position. See Michaels v. Woodland, 988 F.Supp. 468, 472 (D.N.J. 1997 ).

In the criminal context, the rule ordinarily applies only after adversarial proceedings have begun by arrest, complaint, or indictment on the charges that are the subject of the communication. See State v. Bisaccia, 319 N.J. Super. 1, 22-23 (App. Div. 1999).

Concerning communication with governmental officials, the New Jersey Supreme Court Commission on the Rules of Professional Conduct agrees with the American Bar Association's Commission comments, which state:

Communications authorized by law may include communications by a lawyer on behalf of a client who is exercising a constitutional or other legal right to communicate with a governmental official. For example, the constitutional right to petition and the public policy of ensuring a citizen's right of access to government decision makers, may permit a lawyer representing a private party in a controversy with the government to communicate about the matter with government officials who have authority to take or recommend action in the matter.