UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

┐ 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, │ No. 23-1471 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. │ ┘

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.

_________________

COUNSEL ARGUED: Philip Lee Ellison, OUTSIDE LEGAL COUNSEL, Hemlock, Michigan, for Appellants. David H. Fink, FINK BRESSACK, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for the Settlement Class Appellees. Matthew T. Nelson, WARNER NORCROSS & JUDD, Grand Rapids, No. 23-1471 Wayside Church, et al. v. Van Buren Cnty., Mich., et al. Page 2

Michigan, for the County Appellees. ON BRIEF: Donald Ray Visser, VISSER & ASSOCIATES PLLC, Kentwood, Michigan, for Appellants. David H. Fink, Nathan J. Fink, Philip D.W. Miller, FINK BRESSACK, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, for the Settlement Class Appellees. Matthew T. Nelson, WARNER NORCROSS & JUDD, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Charles A. Lawler, Cynthia Filipovich, Magy Shenouda, CLARK HILL, Lansing, Michigan, Douglas J. Curlew, CUMMINGS MCCLOREY DAVIS & ACHO, Livonia, Michigan, Thomas W. Seitz, DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC, Lansing, Michigan, for the County Appellees. _________________

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 (“Vis