New York County Lawyers’ Association Ethics Opinion 738

Committee on Professional Ethics Topic: Searching inadvertently sent metadata in opposing counsel’s electronic documents From the digest: “A lawyer who receives from an adversary electronic documents that appear to contain inadvertently produced metadata is ethically obligated to avoid searching the metadata in those documents. (…) Using the metadata is appropriate in circumstances where the adversary […]

Tags: , , ,

New York State Bar Opinion 820

Committee on Professional Ethics Topic: Use of E-mail Service Provider that Scans E-mails for Advertising Purposes Digest of the Committee: A lawyer may use an e-mail service provider that conducts computer scans of e-mails to generate computer advertising, where the e-mails are not reviewed by or provided to human beings other than the sender and […]


Maryland State Bar Association Opinion 2007-09

Committee on Ethics, Ethics Docket No. 2007-09 Topics: metadata (set “in the context of litigation” but “general in nature”) From the Opinion: When transmitting a document with metadata, “absent an agreement with the other parties (such as is contemplated in proposed Federal [Rules] 16(b)(5) and (6)), the sending attorney has an ethical obligation to take […]

Tags: , ,

State Bar of Arizona Ethics Opinion 07-03

Arizona State Bar Association Committee on the Rules of Professional Conduct Topic: Confidentiality; Electronic Communications; Inadvertent Disclosure Conclusion of the Committee: “Lawyers who send communications or other documents electronically must be aware that such activity has inherent risks. Therefore, the lawyer must take reasonable measures to prevent the inadvertent disclosure of confidential client information. At […]

Tags: , ,

District of Columbia Bar Opinion 341

District of Columbia Bar’s Legal Ethics Committee Topic: Review and Use of Metadata in Electronic Documents Digest of the Committee: “A receiving lawyer is prohibited from reviewing metadata sent by an adversary only where he has actual knowledge that the metadata was inadvertently sent. In such instances, the receiving lawyer should not review the metadata before […]

Tags: ,

Alabama Disciplinary Commission Opinion 2007-02

Alabama State Bar Office of General Counsel, Disciplinary Commission Topic: Disclosure and mining of metadata Digest of the Commission: “Lawyers have a duty under Rule 1.6 to use reasonable care when transmitting electronic documents to prevent the disclosure of metadata containing client confidences or secrets. Absent express authorization from a court, it is ethically impermissible […]

Tags: ,

Florida Bar Opinion 06-2

Professional Ethics of the Florida Bar  Topics: metadata; duties of a lawyer when sending an electronic document to another lawyer and when receiving an electronic document from another lawyer in the course of representing their clients. Summary: “A lawyer who is sending an electronic document should take care to ensure the confidentiality of all information […]

Tags: , ,

ABA Opinion 2006-442

American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility Topic: Review and Use of Metadata Digest of the Committee: “The Model Rules of Professional Conduct do not contain any specific prohibition against a lawyer’s reviewing and using embedded information in electronic documents, whether received from opposing counsel, an adverse party, or an agent of […]


New Jersey Advisory Committee on Professional Ethics Opinion 701

Topic: Electronic storage and access of client files From the Opinion: “We are reluctant to render an [sic] specific interpretation of RPC 1.6 or impose a requirement that is tied to a specific understanding of technology that may very well be obsolete tomorrow. Thus, for instance, we do not read RPC 1.6 or Opinion 515 as imposing a […]

Tags: , ,

ABA Opinion 2005-437

American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility Topic: Inadvertent Disclosure of Confidential Materials Digest of the Committee: “A lawyer who receives a document from opposing parties or their lawyers and knows or reasonably should know that the document was inadvertently sent should promptly notify the sender in order to permit the sender […]


1 2 3 4 5