Recent ABA Formal Ethics Opinion examines obligations of lawyers in providing file documents to former clients after termination

Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert which will discuss recent American Bar Association Formal Ethics Opinion 471 which discusses the obligations of lawyers to return file/documents to former clients.  The opinion is Formal Opinion 471 (Ethical Obligations of Lawyer to Surrender Papers and Property to which Former Client is Entitled) (July 1, 2015) and is online here: http://www.abajournal.com/files/aba_formal_opinion_471(7-1-15).pdf

The opinion begins with the premise that lawyers must often return documents and materials to a client after the termination of the representation in order to protect client’s interests.  The opinion analyzed the following facts:  a lawyer had represented a governmental municipality for 10 years.  After the representation was terminated, the municipality requested that  the lawyer provide its new counsel with all files, including both open and closed files.

The opinion further states that lawyers’ obligations and responsibilities are generally outlined in ABA Model Rules 1.15 and 1.16.  Model Rule 1.15 provides that a lawyer must safeguard a client’s property and promptly return it to the client when requested. Model Rule 1.16(d) provides that lawyers take steps “reasonably practicable to protect a client’s interests.” These steps include “in providing file documents to former clients after termination.”  The Model Rules do not define what “papers and property to which the client is entitled.”

According to the opinion, most jurisdictions apply the “entire file” approach, wherein there is a presumption that lawyers must return all papers in the file unless a specific exception applies.  “In those jurisdictions, at the termination of a representation, a lawyer must surrender papers and property related to the representation in the lawyer’s possession unless the lawyer establishes that a specific exception applies and that certain papers or property may be properly withheld.  Commonly recognized exceptions to surrender include: materials that would violate a duty of non-disclosure to another person; materials containing a lawyer’s assessment of the client; materials containing information, which, if released, could endanger the health, safety, or welfare of the client or others;16 and documents reflecting only internal firm communications and assignments. The entire file approach assumes that the client has an expansive general right to materials related to the representation and retains that right when the representation ends.”

Other jurisdictions use the “end product” approach.  Under this approach, lawyers must provide all finished products in the file, such as pleadings and expert and investigative reports, but not work product, such as memoranda about conflicts of interest or ethics, drafts of legal instruments, and legal research and memoranda.  According to the opinion, “(a)dministrative materials related to the representation, such as memoranda concerning potential conflicts of interest, the client’s creditworthiness, time and expense records, or personnel matters, are not considered materials to which the client is entitled under the end product approach. Additionally, the lawyer’s personal notes, drafts of legal instruments or documents to be filed with a tribunal, other internal memoranda, and legal research are viewed as generated primarily for the lawyer’s own purpose in working on a client’s matter, and, therefore, need not be surrendered to the client under the end product approach.” Florida follows this approach.

The opinion states that lawyers should always return end product materials; however, “there may be circumstances in individual representations that require the lawyer to provide additional materials related to the representation.”  Also, any documents and/or materials which would likely prejudice the client’s interests if they are not provided must be returned to the client. The opinion also noted that if a filing deadline is imminent, a lawyer must timely provide “the most recent draft and relevant supporting research” to avoid causing prejudice to the client.

Bottom line: this opinion provides important guidance from the ABA regarding a lawyer’s duties and obligations when providing file documents and/or materials to a client after the representation is terminated.  Of course, lawyers must determine which rule their jurisdiction applies before acting.

Be careful out there.

Disclaimer:  this e-mail is not an advertisement, does not contain any legal advice, and does not create an attorney/client relationship and the comments herein should not be relied upon by anyone who reads it.

Joseph A. Corsmeier, Esquire

Law Office of Joseph A. Corsmeier, P.A.

2454 McMullen Booth Road, Suite 431

Clearwater, Florida 33759

Office (727) 799-1688

Fax     (727) 799-1670

jcorsmeier@jac-law.com

www.jac-law.com

 

 

 

Advertisements

3 Comments

Filed under ABA Ethics opinion in providing file documents to former clients after termination, Attorney Ethics, joe corsmeier, Joseph Corsmeier, Lawyer ethics, Lawyer Ethics and Professionalism, Lawyer ethics opinion in providing file documents to former clients after termination, Lawyer ethics opinions, lawyer ethics opinions Groupon type marketing, Lawyer ethics returning documents to client after termination

3 responses to “Recent ABA Formal Ethics Opinion examines obligations of lawyers in providing file documents to former clients after termination

  1. Ref. “Of course, lawyers must determine which rule their jurisdiction applies before acting.”
    Even on a quick reading, there could be many genuine doubts arising in anyone’s mind. For instance. Re. ‘Jurisdiction’, is it the jurisdiction or ‘locale’, of either or both, lawyer and client, which is of relevance, and should apply? A more difficult question may arise- where either of or both lawyer and client (say, if in a given case, either or both being a corporate) have locale / functions from both jurisdictions spoken of . For that matter, as is imagined, the two varying approaches i.e. ‘entire file’ and ‘end product’ by themselves might entail litigation ; turn out to be an inconclusive one, and unlikely to get resolved within ‘life time’ !
    Similar controversies pivoted on ‘jurisdiction’ might arise, or have already arisen but remaining unresolved, in disputes between doctor and patient , and business entity and client / customer e,g. In Banking sector.

  2. My comment remains to be displayed; why, any reason ?!

  3. Not yet displayed ; says , – ‘awaiting moderation’ ?!
    keep wondering, – any ‘mind block’ , any where ????

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s