The Maryland Attorneys' Rules of Professional Conduct are rules of reason. They should be interpreted with reference to the purposes of legal representation and of the law itself. Some of the Rules are imperatives, 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 attorney has discretion to exercise professional judgment. No disciplinary action should be taken when the attorney chooses not to act or acts within the bounds of such discretion. Other Rules define the nature of relationships between the attorney and others. The Rules are thus partly obligatory and disciplinary and partly constitutive and descriptive in that they define a attorney'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 larger legal context shaping the attorney's role. That context includes court rules and statutes relating to matters of licensure, laws defining specific obligations of attorneys and substantive and procedural law in general. The Comments are sometimes used to alert attorneys to their responsibilities under such other law.
 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 an attorney, 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 attorney's authority and responsibility, principles of substantive law external to these Rules determine whether a client-attorney relationship exists. Most of the duties flowing from the client-attorney relationship attach only after the client has requested the attorney to render legal services and the attorney has agreed to do so. But there are some duties, such as that of confidentiality under Rule 19-301.6 (1.6), that attach when the attorney agrees to consider whether a client-attorney relationship shall be established. See Rule 19-301.18 (1.18). Whether a client-attorney 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 attorneys may include authority concerning legal matters that ordinarily reposes in the client in private client-attorney relationships. For example, an attorney 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, attorneys under the supervision of these officers may be authorized to represent several government agencies in intra-governmental legal controversies in circumstances where a private attorney could not represent multiple private clients. 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 an attorney'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 an attorney 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 does not itself give rise to a cause of action against an attorney nor does it create any presumption that a legal duty has been breached. In addition, violation of a Rule does not necessarily warrant any other non-disciplinary remedy, such as disqualification of an attorney in pending litigation. The Rules are designed to provide guidance to attorneys 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 an attorney's self-assessment, or for sanctioning an attorney 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. Nevertheless, in some circumstances, an attorney's violation of a Rule may be evidence of breach of the applicable standard of conduct. Nothing in this Preamble and Scope is intended to detract from the holdings of the Court of Appeals in Post v. Bregman, 349 Md. 142 (1998) and Son v. Margolius, Mallios, Davis, Rider & Tomar, 349 Md. 441 (1998).
 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.