Rule 1:18 - Pretrial Scheduling OrderA. In any civil case the parties, by counsel of record, may agree and submit for approval and entry by the court a pretrial scheduling order. If the court determines that the submitted order is not consistent with the efficient and orderly administration of justice, then the court will notify counsel and provide an opportunity to be heard.B. In any civil case in which a pretrial scheduling order has not otherwise been entered pursuant to the court's normal scheduling procedure, the court may, upon request of counsel of record for any party, or in its own discretion, enter the pretrial scheduling order contained in Section 3 of the Appendix of Forms at the end of Part I of these Rules (Uniform Pretrial Scheduling Order). The court will cause copies of the order so entered to forthwith be transmitted to counsel for all parties. If any party objects to or requests modification of that order, the court will (a) hold a hearing to rule upon the objection or request or (b) with the consent of all parties and the approval of the court, enter an amended pretrial scheduling order.C. With the exception of domestic relations and eminent domain cases, a court may not enter a scheduling order which deviates from the terms of the Uniform Pretrial Scheduling Order unless either (1) counsel of record for all parties agree to different provisions, or (2) the court, after providing an opportunity for counsel of record to be heard, makes a finding that the scheduling order contained in the Appendix is not consistent with the efficient and orderly administration of justice under the specific circumstances of that case.Comment
[1] Prospective clients, like clients, may disclose information to a lawyer, place documents or other property in the lawyer's custody, or rely on the lawyer's advice. A lawyer's discussions with a prospective client usually are limited in time and depth and leave both the prospective client and the lawyer free (and sometimes required) to proceed no further. The principle of loyalty diminishes in importance if the sole reason for an individual lawyer's disqualification is the lawyer's initial consultation with a prospective new client with whom no client-lawyer relationship is formed, either because the lawyer detected a conflict of interest as a result of an initial consultation, or for some other reason (e.g., the prospective client decided not to retain the firm). Hence, prospective clients should receive some but not all of the protection afforded clients.[2] Not all persons who communicate information to a lawyer are entitled to protection under this Rule. A person who communicates information unilaterally to a lawyer, without any reasonable expectation that the lawyer is willing to discuss the possibility of forming a client-lawyer relationship, is not a "prospective client" within the meaning of paragraph (a). [3] It is often necessary for a prospective client to reveal information to the lawyer during an initial consultation prior to the decision about formation of a client-lawyer relationship. The client may disclose such information as part of the process of determining whether the client wishes to form a client-lawyer relationship. The lawyer often must learn such information to determine whether there is a conflict of interest with an existing client and whether the matter is one that the lawyer is willing to undertake. Paragraph (b) prohibits the lawyer from using or revealing that information, except as permitted by Rule 1.9, even if the client or lawyer decides not to proceed with the representation. The duty exists regardless of how brief the initial conference may be. [4] In order to avoid acquiring disqualifying information from a prospective client, a lawyer considering whether or not to undertake a new matter should limit the initial interview to only such information as reasonably appears necessary for that purpose. Where the information indicates that a conflict of interest or other reason for non-representation exists, the lawyer should so inform the prospective client or decline the representation. If the prospective client wishes to retain the lawyer, and if consent is possible under Rule 1.7, then consent from all affected present or former clients must be obtained before accepting the representation. [5] A lawyer may condition conversations with a prospective client on the person's informed consent that no information disclosed during the consultation will prohibit the lawyer from representing a different client in the matter. If the agreement expressly so provides, the prospective client may also consent to the lawyer's subsequent use of information received from the prospective client. [6] Even in the absence of an agreement, under paragraph (c), the lawyer is not prohibited from representing a client with interests adverse to those of the prospective client in the same or a substantially related matter unless the lawyer has received from the prospective client information that could be significantly harmful if used in the matter and the lawyer believes that an effective screen could not be engaged to protect the client.[7] Under paragraph (c), the prohibition in this Rule is imputed to other lawyers as provided in Rule 1.10, but, under paragraph (d)(1), imputation may be avoided if the lawyer obtains the informed consent, confirmed in writing, of both the prospective and affected clients. In the alternative, imputation may be avoided if the conditions of paragraph (d)(2) are met and all disqualified lawyers are timely screened and written notice is promptly given to the prospective client and the lawyer reasonably believes that an effective screen will protect the confidential information of the prospective client. Paragraph (d)(2)(i) does not prohibit the screened lawyer from receiving a salary or partnership share established by prior independent agreement, but that lawyer may not receive compensation directly related to the matter in which the lawyer is disqualified. [8] Notice, including a general description of the subject matter about which the lawyer was consulted, and of the screening procedures employed, generally should be given as soon as practicable after the need for screening becomes apparent. [9] For the duty of competence of a lawyer who gives assistance on the merits of a matter to a prospective client, see Rule 1.1. For a lawyer's duties when a prospective client entrusts valuables or papers to the lawyer's care, see Rule 1.15. Amended by Order dated February 28, 2014; effective 5/1/2014; amended by order dated May 31, 2017, effective 8/1/2017; amended by order dated September 3, 2020, effective 9/3/2020; amended by order dated November 23, 2020, effective 3/1/2021; amended by order dated December 23, 2020, effective 12/23/2020; amended by order dated June 13, 2022, effective 8/12/2022.