CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
WAYSIDE CHURCH, an Illinois, Not-For-Profit (Ecclesiastical) Corporation, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated; HENDERSON HODGENS, Van Buren County, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
VAN BUREN COUNTY, MICHIGAN, in its individual Michigan municipal capacity and on behalf of a class of all other Michigan counties similarly situated, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees,

VISSER AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC; DONALD RAY VISSER; DONOVAN VISSER,
Intervening Appellants.
   No. 23-1471
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids.
No. 1:14-cv-01274—Paul Lewis Maloney, District Judge.
Argued: March 21, 2024
Decided and Filed: June 6, 2024
Before: KETHLEDGE, READLER, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. In putative class actions, a class comes into existence only when the court actually certifies one in an order entered under Civil Rule 23(c). Before then, the potential members of the putative class are merely that—and lawyers other than putative class counsel are generally free to communicate truthful, non-misleading information to those potential class members. But a lawyer may lose that freedom if, in making those communications, the lawyer violates ethical rules.

At issue here is a protective order in which the district court barred Visser and Associates, PLLC (“Visser”), from communicating with potential class members in a putative class action that is now pending before the court. Visser’s communications with members of the potential class were not misleading. But Visser solicited named plaintiffs, in violation of an ethical rule, and later misled the court itself. For those reasons, we affirm the district court’s order.