Board of Professional Responsibility of the Supreme Court of Tennessee

FEO 2025-F-171-Formatted-for-web.pdf (2025)

Original PDF Document

Download Official Record (FEO 2025-F-171-Formatted-for-web.pdf)

Go to Top

Alternative Accessible HTML

Accessible Alternative: This HTML version is an automatically processed accessible alternative. While it provides a searchable format, the text extraction may contain formatting or character errors. The original PDF remains the authoritative official record.

Need a different format? Use the Request Assistance Form.

BOARD OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE
SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE

FORMAL ETHICS OPINION 2025-F-171

The Board of Professional Responsibility has been requested to issue a Formal Ethics Opinion
regarding the ethical propriety, in a products liability case, of a non-disparagement clause in a
settlement agreement which makes the lawyers in Firm A parties to the settlement agreement
proposed by Firm B.

OPINION

It is improper for an attorney to propose or accept a provision in a settlement agreement
that requires the attorney to become a party bound by a non-disparagement clause that prohibits
the lawyer from future use of information, learned during the case, which may shed a negative
light on the defendants.

DISCUSSION

The inquiring lawyer has encountered a condition to settlement, in a product liability case
against a certain defendant, which makes lawyers from the inquiring lawyer’s law firm parties to
the Settlement Agreement which includes a non-disparagement clause prohibiting them from
taking any action or making any statements, verbal or written, to any third party that disparage or
defame Defendants.

An immediate conflict has arisen between the client who wants the settlement funds and
the inquiring lawyer’s ethical concerns.

It has long been held in Tennessee that “the attorney’s signature on a release should
vouch only for the fact that the client releases the defendant. A requirement that a plaintiff’s
attorney become a party to a release might cause a conflict of interest between the plaintiff’s
attorney and the plaintiff in violation of DR 5-101(a), [Now RPC 1.7]. Therefore, these clauses
are prohibited except in cases where the plaintiff’s attorney releases a claim for attorney fees.”1

1
Tennessee Formal Ethics Opinion 2010-F-154 (Sept. 10, 2010); Tennessee Formal Ethics Opinion 98-F-141 (Feb. 4,
1998)

1
Notwithstanding the earlier Tennessee Formal Ethics Opinion’s guidance on this issue,
there is also a basis in the Rules of Professional Conduct to find non-disparagement clauses
improper in a products liability case.

Tennessee Rule of Professional Conduct 5.6 (b) says “A lawyer shall not participate in
offering or making an agreement in which a restriction on the lawyer’s right to practice is part of
the settlement of a client controversy.”

ABA Formal Opinion 00-417 (April 7, 2000) explains the rationale for Model Rule 5.6
(b) and its Tennessee counterpart Rule of Professional Conduct 5.6 (b). The opinion explains
that there is strong public policy “favoring the public’s unfettered choice of counsel.”2

Non-disparagement clauses interfere with that public policy in three ways. Such
restrictive agreements limit the public’s access to lawyers.3 A second rationale for disfavoring
disparagement agreements is that they are considered to actually be veiled attempts to “buy off”
plaintiff’s counsel.4 Third, disparagement clauses create potential conflicts for lawyers between
the interests of representing current clients and the interests of potential future clients.5

“Many jurisdictions concur with the ABA that settlement agreements containing indirect
restrictions on the lawyer’s right to practice violate those jurisdictions’ respective equivalents of
Rule 5.6(b).”6

A non-disparagement clause as part of a settlement agreement requiring the firm’s
lawyers to become parties would restrict the plaintiff’s firm from using or discussing any
information learned during the case that sheds a negative light on the Defendants, thereby
indirectly restricting the plaintiff’s counsel from informing potential clients of their experience
and expertise, making it difficult for future clients to identify well-qualified counsel.

There is also a public policy consideration. A non-disparagement clause in a settlement
agreement in a product liability case would deny public access to the data. “The ability for
plaintiffs’ firms to act as industry watchdogs is both good public policy and was specifically
addressed as a vested responsibility during Congress’s enactment of the Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards.”7 A non-disparagement clause would interfere with that responsibility to the
public.

2
ABA Formal Opinion 00-417 (April 7, 2000).
3
ABA Formal Opinion 00-417 (April 7, 2000).
4
Id.
5
Id.
6
D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Committee, Opinion 335 (2006).
7
Tennessee Formal Ethics Opinion 2018-F-166 citing 49 U.S.C. section 30103 (e) (2010).

2
CONCLUSION

Requiring a plaintiff’s attorney to become a party entering into a settlement agreement
containing a non-disparagement clause in a products liability case raises ethical concerns and
creates a conflict between the interests of the plaintiff’s attorney and those of their client.
Consistent the Tennessee Rules of Professional Conduct and with Tennessee Formal Ethics
Opinions 97-F-141 and 2010-F-154, an attorney cannot ethically agree to become a party to such
agreements or clauses.

This 14th day of March, 2025.
ETHICS COMMITTEE

__________________________
Ginger Buchanan, Chair

_________________________
Jimmy Dunn

________________________
APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD Senator Richard Briggs

3

Go to Top

Document Meta Data

Primary Meta Data for PDF File
Key Value
Author Tammy Emery
Creator Tammy Emery
ModifyDate Monday, April 14, 2025 2:51 PM -05:00
PageCount 3
PDFVersion 1.7
Additional Meta Data for PDF File
Key Value
Conformance A
CreateDate Monday, April 14, 2025 2:51 PM -05:00
CreatorTool Microsoft® Word for Microsoft 365
DocumentID uuid:F1FEA5BC-DF14-4BE4-AA01-18349EB400A0
FileName FEO 2025-F-171-Formatted-for-web.pdf
FileSize 329 kB
FileType PDF
FileTypeExtension pdf
InstanceID uuid:F1FEA5BC-DF14-4BE4-AA01-18349EB400A0
Language en
Linearized No
MIMEType application/pdf
Part 3
Producer Microsoft® Word for Microsoft 365
SourceFile FEO 2025-F-171-Formatted-for-web.pdf
TaggedPDF Yes
XMPToolkit 3.1-701

Go to Top

Assistance Request

Request Accessibility Assistance

Go to Top