Hello everyone and welcome to this Ethics Alert blog which will discuss the recent New York State Bar Association Ethics Opinion addressing ethics issues related to a lawyer sending correspondence to opposing counsel and copying the client. The Ethics Opinion is NYSBA Ethics Op. 1076 (Dec. 2015) and the opinion is here: http://www.nysba.org/CustomTemplates/Content.aspx?id=60757
The opinion specifically addresses whether a lawyer must obtain the consent of opposing counsel before he or she can blind copy the client on correspondence to opposing counsel. The opinion states that “(t)wo opposing lawyers do not have a relationship of confidentiality. Consequently, a lawyer who receives correspondence from opposing counsel is not obligated under the Rules of Professional Conduct (the “Rules”) to maintain the confidentiality of those communications. A lawyer does not need the ‘consent’ of opposing counsel to send the client copies of correspondence between the inquirer and opposing counsel. Since a lawyer is an agent of the lawyer’s client, opposing counsel should expect that the lawyer may share correspondence relating to the representation with the client.”
The opinion also states that the lawyer does not engage in “dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation” when he or she send the client copies of correspondence with opposing counsel. The opinion noted that sending the client copies of communications with opposing counsel may be the easiest way for the lawyer to comply with his or her duties under the Bar rules to keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter as well as the lawyer’s duty to provide the client with information that is reasonably necessary for the client to make informed decisions about the representation.
The opinion cautioned that copying or blind copying the client on e-mails with opposing counsel is not the best practice and provided a list of reasons not to copy or blind copy the client, which are below:
Reasons Not to Use Either “cc:” or “bcc:” When Copying e-mails to the Client
Although it is not deceptive for a lawyer to send to his or her client blind copies of communications with opposing counsel, there are other reasons why use of the either “cc:” or “bcc:” when e-mailing the client is not a best practice.
As noted above, “cc:” risks disclosing the client’s e-mail address. It also could be deemed by opposing counsel to be an invitation to send communications to the inquirer’s client. But see Rule 4.2, Cmt.  (Rule 4.2(a) applies even though the represented party initiates or consents to the communication).
Although sending the client a “bcc:” may initially avoid the problem of disclosing the client’s email address, it raises other problems if the client mistakenly responds to the e-mail by hitting “reply all.” For example, if the inquirer and opposing counsel are communicating about a possible settlement of litigation, the inquirer bccs his or her client, and the client hits “reply all” when commenting on the proposal, the client may inadvertently disclose to opposing counsel confidential information otherwise protected by Rule 1.6. See Charm v. Kohn, 27 Mass L. Rep. 421, 2010 (Mass. Super. Sept. 30, 2010) (stating that blind copying a client on lawyer’s email to adversary “gave rise to the foreseeable risk” that client would respond without “tak[ing] careful note of the list of addressees to which he directed his reply”).
Bottom line: Many lawyers copy or blind copy the client with e-mails to opposing counsel (and others). Although it may take additional time, the best practice would be to send a separate e-mail to the client or forward the e-mail to the client after it has been sent.
Be careful out there!
Disclaimer: this Ethics Alert is not an advertisement and does not contain any legal advice 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