The lawyer's duty to keep the client reasonably informed and to respond to reasonable requests for information.
(a) A lawyer shall:
(1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client's informed consent is required by these rules;
(2) reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client's objectives are to be accomplished;
(3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter;
(4) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and
(5) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer's conduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.
(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation. Kan. Sup. Ct. R. 226, KRPC 1.4.
(a) A lawyer shall:
(1) promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which Rule 4-1.0(e) requires the client's informed consent;
(2) reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client's objectives are to be accomplished;
(3) keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter;
(4) promptly comply with reasonable requests for information; and
(5) consult with the client about any relevant limitation on the lawyer's conduct when the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance not permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.
(b) A lawyer shall explain a matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions regarding the representation. Mo. Sup. Ct. R. 4-1.4.
Kansas Rule of Professional Conduct 1.4 and Missouri Rule of Professional Conduct 4-1.4 are substantively identical and track the language of ABA Model Rule 1.4. The rule operates in two complementary parts: subdivision (a) sets five specific affirmative obligations of the lawyer; subdivision (b) requires the lawyer to explain matters to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions about the representation.
The animating principle is that a client cannot exercise the client's own decision-making authority over the representation - authority allocated to the client by Rule 1.2 - without information sufficient to do so. Rule 1.4 is the mechanism that ensures the flow of information adequate to that allocation of authority.
The lawyer must promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance for which the client's informed consent is required by the rules. Informed consent under Rule 1.0 requires the lawyer to communicate adequate information and explanation about the material risks of and reasonably available alternatives to the proposed course of conduct. This obligation arises in connection with conflicts of interest under Rules 1.7 and 1.9, settlement decisions under Rule 1.2(a), entry of pleas in criminal matters, waiver of jury trial, and similar decisions reserved to the client.
The lawyer must reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client's objectives are to be accomplished. The allocation of authority between lawyer and client in Rule 1.2 reserves objectives to the client and gives the lawyer professional discretion over means. Rule 1.4(a)(2) qualifies that allocation: even on matters within the lawyer's professional discretion, the lawyer must consult with the client on the means selected.
The lawyer must keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter. The duty is affirmative; it does not depend on the client asking. The frequency and depth of status updates appropriate to "reasonably informed" depend on the complexity of the matter and the client's reasonable expectations. A litigation matter with pending hearings, court-ordered deadlines, or settlement discussions typically requires more frequent communication than a transactional matter in an inactive phase.
The lawyer must promptly comply with reasonable requests for information. The standard is reasonableness in both the request and the response. A request for routine status information should be answered promptly. A request for documentation, copies of filings, or substantive analysis should be answered within a reasonable time, scaled to the complexity of the request and the demands of other client matters.
When the lawyer knows that the client expects assistance not permitted by the rules or by other law, the lawyer must consult with the client about the limitation. A client requesting a course of conduct the lawyer cannot ethically perform is entitled to be told why and what alternatives are available.
Rule 1.4(b) imposes a separate obligation: the lawyer must explain matters to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions about the representation. The text imposes an obligation calibrated to the client's decision-making, not to the lawyer's perception of what the client needs to know. The Comment to Model Rule 1.4 notes that adequacy of explanation must take account of the client's sophistication; a sophisticated client may need less explanation than an unsophisticated one to reach an informed decision.
Bankruptcy representations are frequently the subject of Rule 1.4 complaints because the procedural pace of a bankruptcy case generates frequent decision points - meeting-of-creditors dates, deadlines to file proofs of claim, deadlines to object to discharge, plan-confirmation hearings, motions for relief from stay - each of which requires communication for the client to make informed decisions. Common Rule 1.4 patterns include:
The duty does not turn on whether the matter is going well. A lawyer cannot suspend Rule 1.4 communication on the theory that there is nothing new to report; if a hearing is approaching, the client must be informed of it. Equally, a lawyer cannot defer answering a reasonable inquiry from a client on the theory that the answer is unfavorable.
The client emails the attorney requesting an update on a pending matter. The lawyer's obligation under Rule 1.4(a)(4) is to respond promptly. A delay of several weeks without acknowledgment is generally inadequate under any reasonableness standard. A short acknowledgment with a substantive response promised by a specific date is generally adequate; failure to follow up by the promised date may itself be a separate violation.
A trustee issues a notice of intent to abandon property, a creditor files a relief-from-stay motion, or the court enters an order requiring a response. Rule 1.4(a)(3) requires the lawyer to inform the client of the development; Rule 1.4(b) requires sufficient explanation that the client can make any decisions reserved to the client.
This page provides general information about Rules of Professional Conduct 1.4 (Kansas) and 4-1.4 (Missouri). It does not constitute legal advice. Specific ethical questions should be evaluated by qualified counsel or referred to the appropriate state disciplinary authority.