If a lawyer copies their own client on an email to opposing counsel, can opposing counsel hit 'reply all' and include that client without violating the no-contact rule?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2022. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The opinion addresses a routine email situation: a lawyer copies the lawyer's own client on a group email or text to opposing counsel, and opposing counsel hits "reply all," which sends the response to the represented client. The question is whether that reply all violates Model Rule 4.2, the no-contact rule, or whether the sending lawyer's act of copying the client supplies the consent the rule requires.
The opinion holds that consent under Rule 4.2 may be implied and need not be express. It reasons that including one's client on a group electronic communication is analogous to adding the client to a videoconference, a phone call, or an in-person meeting with opposing counsel, which conveys that a reply to all is permissible. Per the opinion, "the sending lawyer has chosen to give receiving counsel the impression that replying to all copied on the email or text is permissible and perhaps even encouraged." It notes the inclusive norms of group email, where "reply all" is common and often a default, and points to Rule 1.1 Comment [8] on understanding the technology one uses. It also observes this is not the situation Rule 4.2 mainly targets, namely an opposing lawyer overreaching to pry into the lawyer-client relationship.
The opinion places the burden on the lawyer who initiates the group communication, calling that "the fairest and most efficient allocation," since receiving counsel may not even realize a recipient is the sending lawyer's client. It cautions that implied consent "should not be stretched past the point of reason": it covers only the topics in the initial communication, not unrelated ones, and the content of any reply remains subject to the other Model Rules.
The opinion sets clear limits. The presumption applies only to lawyer-initiated group electronic communications, not to traditional mailed paper letters. And a sending lawyer can overcome the presumption by telling receiving counsel in advance, preferably in writing and not buried in boilerplate, that copying the client does not signify consent to a reply all.
In practice
Under this opinion, when a lawyer copies the lawyer's own client on a group email or text to opposing counsel, opposing counsel may reply all to that client, on the topics in the initial message, without violating Rule 4.2. The opinion describes the better practice as generally not copying the client at all but forwarding the communication separately, because a client may reply hastily with sensitive information. Where a lawyer wants to copy the client without inviting a reply all, the opinion says the lawyer should tell receiving counsel in advance, preferably in a prominent writing, that copying the client is not consent. The opinion notes the implied consent does not extend to mailed paper letters.
Common questions
Q: Does "reply all" to a represented client violate the no-contact rule when their lawyer copied them?
A: Per the opinion, no, absent special circumstances. By copying the client on a group electronic communication to opposing counsel, the sending lawyer impliedly consents under Rule 4.2 to a reply all that reaches the client.
Q: Does the consent cover any topic opposing counsel wants to raise?
A: No. The opinion says implied consent should not be stretched past reason and covers only the specific topics in the initial communication, not unrelated ones.
Q: How can a lawyer copy the client without inviting a reply all?
A: The opinion says to tell receiving counsel in advance, preferably in writing and not buried in boilerplate, that copying the client does not signify consent, or simply to forward the communication to the client separately rather than copying them.
Q: Does the same rule apply to paper letters?
A: No. The opinion limits the implied-consent presumption to lawyer-initiated group emails and texts; it does not extend to traditional mailed paper letters.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets Model Rule 4.2 (communication with a person represented by counsel), which permits such communication with the other lawyer's consent, and explains that consent may be implied. It draws on Rule 1.1 Comment [8] (keeping abreast of relevant technology), Rule 4.4 (respect for the rights of third persons), and Rule 8.4(c) (misrepresentation), and reads Rule 4.2 in light of the Scope provision that the Rules are "rules of reason."
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- ABA Model Rule 4.2 (communication with represented persons; consent)
- ABA Model Rule 1.1 Comment [8] (technological competence)
- ABA Model Rule 4.4 (rights of third persons), 8.4(c) (misrepresentation)
Other opinions cited:
- ABA Formal Op. 498 (2021): virtual practice
- ABA Formal Op. 477R (2017): securing email communications
- California COPRAC Op. 2011-181: factors bearing on implied consent
See also
- ABA Formal Op. 511R: Confidentiality on Listservs
- ABA Formal Op. 512: Generative AI Tools
- ABA Formal Op. 508: Ethics of Witness Preparation
Source
- Landing page: ABA Formal Ethics Opinions index
- Original PDF: aba-formal-opinion-503.pdf
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 2022 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.