ABA urges lawyers to avoid copying clients when sending emails to opposing lawyers

ABA issues guidance for lawyers on email protocols and the 'reply all' use

ABA urges lawyers to avoid copying clients when sending emails to opposing lawyers

Lawyers have been cautioned to refrain from copying their clients when sending emails to opposing lawyers, following the American Bar Association (ABA) Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility’s release of its formal opinion that provides practical guidance to lawyers operating in an email world.

Formal Opinion 503 explores communications and the scope of ABA model rule 4.2, which is commonly called the “no-contact” or “anticontact” rule. It has been part of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct since its inception in 1983.

The new formal opinion will not tag opposing lawyers with a violation of Rule 4.2 if they respond to a group email or text sent by the opposing counsel with a “reply all” even if that communication includes the opposing counsel’s client.

“Absent special circumstances, lawyers who copy their clients on emails or other forms of electronic communication to counsel representing another person in the matter (infers) consent to a ‘reply all’ response from the receiving counsel,” the opinion said. “Accordingly, the ‘reply all’ communication would not violate Model Rule 4.2.”

As a practical matter, Formal Opinion 503 suggests that lawyers “who would like to avoid consenting to such communication should forward the email or text to the client separately or inform the receiving counsel in advance that including the client on the electronic communication does not constitute consent to a ‘reply all’ communication.”

The ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility periodically issues ethics opinions to guide lawyers, courts and the public in interpreting and applying ABA model ethics rules to specific issues of legal practice, client-lawyer relationships and judicial behavior.

Recent articles & video

Ontario Superior Court certifies class action against crypto asset trading platform Binance

NS Court of Appeal denies request for the production of CCTV footage in a personal injury action

NS Supreme Court clarifies disclosure standards in a divorce and property division case

Federal Court overturns study permit denial due to immigration officer’s unreasonable assessment

Ontario Court of Appeal dismisses stroke-related medical malpractice suit against physician

Military judges being subject to chain of command does not sacrifice independence, impartiality: SCC

Most Read Articles

BC Supreme Court upholds mother’s will against son's claims for greater inheritance

BC Supreme Court clarifies when spousal and child support obligations should end

Federal Court approves $817 million settlement for disabled Canadian veterans

Ontario Superior Court rejects worker's psychological impairment claim from a workplace injury