Comment on Milberg Weiss Settlement New York Law Journal, 7/2/03, p.2. Your June 26, 2003 article entitled “Milberg Withdrew, Promised Never to Sue Tire Company Again” notes that the law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach agreed to forbear from suing Titan International, Inc. as part of a settlement agreement. The article quoted two attorneys as saying that they had never seen a stipulation of discontinuance that included an express agreement not to sue a company again. The reason why such agreements are so rare, at least with respect to New York-based law firms, is that they raise various ethical problems noted in a Formal Ethics Opinion (FN1) promulgated by the Association of the Bar of the City of New York’s Committee on Professional and Judicial Ethics, which states that “[a] lawyer may not enter into a settlement agreement that restricts her own or another lawyer’s ability to represent one or more clients, even if such an agreement may be enforceable as a matter of law.” The reasoning is that this would violate Disciplinary Rule 2-108(B), which states that “In connection with the settlement of a controversy or suit, a lawyer shall not enter into an agreement that restricts the right of a lawyer to practice law.” (FN2) Although I believe that the Committee, in its preoccupation with an attorney’s obligation to a hypothetical future client, interferes with that attorney’s ability to maximize his actual client’s best interests, I felt obliged to abide by its Opinion during a recent settlement negotiation of my own. I wonder why Milberg Weiss did not feel similarly constrained. FN1 - Restrictive Practice Agreements (Settlements), Formal Opinion #1999-03. FN2 -  22 NYCRR Sec. 1200.13(b)