C - The greatest legal mind the world has ever known, and Andrew Seidel both agree
What do we want, time travel. When do we want it. That's Irrelevant!
2022-02-12 15:45:55 +0000 UTC
The answer is C. Rule 4.3 does not prohibit Thomas from negotiating the terms of a transaction or settling a dispute with an unrepresented person. So long as Thomas has explained that he represents an adverse party and is not representing the person. One reason for the rule is the general public may not understand Thomas' role and may believe him to be a disinterested third party acting as a minister of justice instead of a zealous advocate of his client.
Thomas better be able to show that he complied with 4.3, or the (formerly) unrepresented party will have a good argument to set aside the agreement. Even though 4.3 requires Thomas to advise an unrepresented opposing party to retain counsel, it is in everyone's best interest for both parties to be represented.