Rule 4.3.Dealing with Unrepresented Person 
 In dealing on behalf of a client with a person who is not 
 represented by counsel, a lawyer shall state that the lawyer is 
 representing a client and shall not state or imply that the lawyer is 
 disinterested.  When the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the 
 unrepresented person misunderstands the lawyer's role in the matter, the 
 lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to correct the misunderstanding. 
 The lawyer shall not give advice to the unrepresented person other than 
 to secure counsel. 
  
 

                                                                
ANNOTATIONSSource: 
 Comment amended and adopted June 17, 1999, effective July 1, 1999. 
  
  
  
 COMMENT 
 An unrepresented person, particularly one not experienced in 
 dealing with legal matters, might assume that a lawyer is disinterested 
 in loyalties or is a disinterested authority on the law even when the 
 lawyer represents a client.  During the course of a lawyer's 
 representation of a client, the lawyer should not give advice to an 
 unrepresented person other than the advice to obtain counsel. 
 The lawyer must comply with the requirements of this Rule for pro se parties to whom 
 limited 
 representation has been provided, in accordance with C.R.C.P. 11(b), C.R.C.P. 311(b), 
 Colo.RPC 1.2, and Colo.RPC 4.2. Such parties are considered to be unrepresented for 
 purposes of this Rule. 
  
 COMMITTEE COMMENT 
 The Committee has added to the ABA provision the language 
 requiring the lawyer to "state that the lawyer is representing a 
 client".  The Committee has also added the requirement that "the lawyer 
 shall not give advice to the unrepresented person other than to secure 
 counsel", to parallel DR 7-104(A)(2) of the Code. 
  
  
  
 ANNOTATION 
  
 Law reviews.  For article, "Discrete Task Representation a/k/a Unbundled 
 Legal Services", see 29 Colo. Law. 5 (January 2000). 
  
 Annotator's note. 
 Rule 4.3 is similar to 
 DR 7-104 as it 
 existed prior to the 1992 repeal and reenactment of the Code of 
 Professional Responsibility. 
 Relevant cases construing that provision have been included 
 in the annotations to Rule 3.4. 
  
 Conduct violating this rule in conjunction with other disciplinary rules is sufficient 
 to justify suspension.  In re Meyers, 981 P.2d 143 (Colo. 1999).