The Rules of Professional Conduct are rules of reason.  They 
 should be interpreted with reference to the purposes of legal 
 representations and of the law itself.  Some of the Rules are 
 imperative, cast in the terms "shall" or "shall not."  These define 
 proper conduct for purposes of professional discipline.  Others, 
 generally cast in the term "may," are permissive and define areas under 
 the Rules in which the lawyer has professional discretion.  No 
 disciplinary action should be taken when the lawyer chooses not to act 
 or acts within the bounds of such discretion.  Other Rules define the 
 nature of relationships between the lawyer and others.  The Rules are 
 thus partly obligatory and disciplinary and partly constitutive and 
 descriptive in that they define a lawyer's professional role.  Many of 
 the Comments use the term "should."  Comments do not add obligations to 
 the Rules but provide guidance for practicing in compliance with the 
 Rules. 
  
 The Rules presuppose a large legal context shaping the lawyer's 
 role.  That context includes court rules and statutes relating to 
 matters of licensure, laws, defining specific obligations of lawyers and 
 substantive and procedural law in general.  Compliance with the Rules, 
 as with all law in an open society, depends primarily upon understanding 
 and voluntary compliance, secondarily upon reinforcement by peer and 
 public opinion and finally, when necessary, upon enforcement through 
 disciplinary proceedings.  The Rules do not, however, exhaust the moral 
 and ethical considerations that should inform a lawyer, for no 
 worthwhile human activity can be completely defined by legal rules.  The 
 Rules simply provide a framework for the ethical practice of law. 
  
 Furthermore, for purposes of determining the lawyer's authority 
 and responsibility, principles of substantive law external to these 
 Rules determine whether a client-lawyer relationship exists.  Most of 
 the duties flowing from the client-lawyer relationship attach only after 
 the client has requested the lawyer to render legal services and the 
 lawyer has agreed to do so.  But there are some duties, such as that of 
 confidentiality under Rule 1.6, that may attach when the lawyer agrees 
 to consider whether a client-lawyer relationship shall be established. 
 Whether a client-lawyer relationship exists for any specific purpose can 
 depend on the circumstances and may be a question of fact. 
  
 Under various legal provisions, including constitutional, 
 statutory and common law, the responsibilities of government lawyers may 
 include authority concerning legal matters that ordinarily reposes in 
 the client in private client-lawyer relationships.  For example, a 
 lawyer for a government agency may have authority on behalf of the 
 government to decide upon settlement or whether to appeal from an 
 adverse judgment.  Such authority in various respects is generally 
 vested in the attorney general and the state's attorney in state government, 
 and 
 their federal counterparts, and the same may be true of other government law 
 officers.  Also, lawyers under the supervision of these officers may be 
 authorized to represent several government agencies in intragovernmental legal 
 controversies in circumstances where a private lawyer could not represent 
 multiple private clients.  They also may have authority to represent the 
 "public interest" in circumstances where a private lawyer would not be 
 authorized to do so.  These Rules do not abrogate any such authority. 
  
 Failure to comply with an obligation or prohibition imposed by a 
 Rule is a basis for invoking the disciplinary process.  The Rules 
 presuppose that disciplinary assessment of a lawyer's conduct will be 
 made on the basis of the facts and circumstances as they existed at the 
 time of the conduct in question and in recognition of the fact that a 
 lawyer often has to act upon uncertain or incomplete evidence of the 
 situation.  Moreover, the Rules presuppose that whether or not 
 discipline should be imposed for a violation, and the severity of a 
 sanction, depend on all the circumstances, such as the willfulness and 
 seriousness of the violation, extenuating factors and whether there have 
 been previous violations. 
  
 Violation of a Rule should not in and of itself give rise to a 
 cause of action nor should it create any presumption that a legal duty 
 has been breached.  The Rules are designed to provide guidance to 
 lawyers and to provide a structure for regulating conduct through 
 disciplinary agencies.  They are not designed to be a basis for civil 
 liability.  Furthermore, the purpose of the Rules can be subverted when 
 they are invoked by opposing parties as procedural weapons.  The fact 
 that a Rule is a just basis for a lawyer's self-assessment, or for 
 sanctioning a lawyer under the administration of a disciplinary 
 authority, does not imply that an antagonist in a collateral proceeding 
 or transaction has standing to seek enforcement of the Rule. 
 Accordingly, nothing in the Rules should be deemed to augment any 
 substantive legal duty of lawyers or the extra-disciplinary consequences 
 of violating such a duty. 
  
 Moreover, these Rules are not intended to govern or affect 
 judicial application of either the attorney-client or work product 
 privilege.  Those privileges were developed to promote compliance with 
 law and fairness in litigation.  In reliance on the attorney-client 
 privilege, clients are entitled to expect that communications within the 
 scope of the privilege will be protected against compelled disclosure. 
 The attorney-client privilege is that of the client and not of the 
 lawyer.  The fact that in exceptional situations the lawyer under the 
 Rules has a limited discretion to disclose a client confidence does not 
 vitiate the proposition that, as a general matter, the client has a 
 reasonable expectation that information relating to the client will not 
 be voluntarily disclosed and that disclosure of such information may be 
 judicially compelled only in accordance with recognized exceptions to 
 the attorney-client and work product privileges. 
  
 The lawyer's exercise of discretion not to disclose information 
 under Rule 1.6 should not be subject to reexamination.  Permitting such 
 reexamination would be incompatible with the general policy of promoting 
 compliance with law through assurances that communications will be 
 protected against disclosure. 
  
 The Comment accompanying each Rule explains and illustrates the 
 meaning and purpose of the Rule.  The Preamble and this note on Scope provide 
 general orientation.  The Comments are intended as guides to interpretation, 
 but the text of each Rule is authoritative.