Under Rule 1.2, which statement about actions to carry out representation is correct?

Under Rule 1.2, which statement about actions to carry out representation is correct?

• A. The lawyer MAY take implied action to carry out representation.
• B. The lawyer may only act with explicit written permission to all actions.
• C. The lawyer may ignore client decisions if the client requests.
• D. The lawyer is required to refuse any action not explicitly approved.

Answer: (A)

Under Rule 1.2, a lawyer is allowed to take actions that are reasonably necessary to carry out the client’s objectives in the representation, without needing explicit permission for every step. This includes implied actions like negotiating settlements, gathering information, or hiring experts when those moves are necessary to pursue the client’s goals and stay within the scope of the representation. This is why the statement that a lawyer may take implied action to carry out representation is correct. It reflects that not every action requires formal, separate authorization—only those that would involve a significant decision or deviate from the agreed means generally need client input, though the lawyer should consult with the client about the means as needed. The other ideas are not correct because requiring explicit written permission for all actions is overly restrictive; lawyers must not ignore client decisions about objectives, and they are not obliged to refuse any action simply because it wasn’t explicitly approved in advance.

Under Rule 1.2, a lawyer is allowed to take actions that are reasonably necessary to carry out the client’s objectives in the representation, without needing explicit permission for every step. This includes implied actions like negotiating settlements, gathering information, or hiring experts when those moves are necessary to pursue the client’s goals and stay within the scope of the representation.

This is why the statement that a lawyer may take implied action to carry out representation is correct. It reflects that not every action requires formal, separate authorization—only those that would involve a significant decision or deviate from the agreed means generally need client input, though the lawyer should consult with the client about the means as needed.

The other ideas are not correct because requiring explicit written permission for all actions is overly restrictive; lawyers must not ignore client decisions about objectives, and they are not obliged to refuse any action simply because it wasn’t explicitly approved in advance.