May a Colorado lawyer post or share briefs, deposition videos, court orders, or other materials from a client's matter?

Plain-English summary

Opinion 130 applies the confidentiality rules to deposition videos, transcripts, briefs, discovery responses, court orders, and other materials obtained or created during representation. Rule 1.6 protects all information relating to a current client's representation, whatever its source, and contains no exception for material that is educational, newsworthy, or already in a public record. Rule 1.9(c)(2) similarly bars revealing former-client information even when it is generally known. The opinion distinguishes use from revelation: generally known information may sometimes be used under Rule 1.9(c)(1), but posting or sharing necessarily reveals it.

A client may give informed consent, but the lawyer must explain the specific material, method and audience of publication, risks to the client and matter, and the possibility that others will redistribute it. An engagement-letter provision signed before the material exists may not be informed because the client cannot yet assess its contents or risks. Without consent, redaction can permit sharing only when it removes the client's identity and every detail that could reasonably connect the material to the client or representation. Removing the client's name alone is usually insufficient.

Confidentiality is not the only limit. Rule 3.4(c) requires compliance with protective orders and other tribunal obligations; Rule 3.6 restricts statements substantially likely to prejudice an adjudicative proceeding; Rule 8.4(c) bars edited or manipulated material that is false or misleading; and Rule 4.4(a) restricts sharing whose only substantial purpose is to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person. Rule 8.4(a) also prevents a lawyer from using a client or another person to publish material that the lawyer could not ethically publish directly.

In practice

Under Opinion 130, the analysis begins with whether the material contains any information relating to a current or former client's representation, not whether the document is public. If it does, publication requires informed consent or redaction that prevents identification and linkage. Even then, a separate court order, trial-publicity rule, truthfulness duty, or third-person protection may prohibit or limit the disclosure.

Common questions

Q: May a lawyer post a court order or filing because it is already public?

A: Not without further analysis. The opinion states that public-record status does not remove information from Rule 1.6 or Rule 1.9(c)(2), so client consent or sufficient redaction is still required unless another exception applies.

Q: Is removing the client's name enough?

A: Usually not. The opinion requires removal of details that identify the client, connect the material to the client, or allow identification through outside research, including dates, locations, addresses, and distinctive events when relevant.

Q: Can the engagement letter authorize future posting of deposition transcripts?

A: The opinion states that advance consent may not be informed when the material does not yet exist and the client cannot appreciate its contents and risks. Consent is more likely to be informed after the client can review the particular material.

Q: May a lawyer post an edited deposition clip with the client's consent?

A: Consent does not authorize misleading publication. The opinion states that selectively edited or manipulated material may violate Rule 8.4(c) if it presents information in a false or misleading light.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Colorado RPC 1.6 and 1.9(c) as broad duties protecting current- and former-client information. It also applies Rule 1.8(b) to disadvantageous use, Rule 3.4(c) to tribunal orders, Rule 3.6 to trial publicity, Rule 4.4(a) to burdensome or embarrassing means, and Rules 8.4(a) and (c) to indirect violations and misleading publication.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Colo. RPC 1.6 / ABA Model Rule 1.6 (current-client confidentiality)
• Colo. RPC 1.8(b) (use of client information to the client's disadvantage)
• Colo. RPC 1.9(c) (use and revelation of former-client information)
• Colo. RPC 3.4(c) and 3.6 (tribunal orders and trial publicity)
• Colo. RPC 4.4(a) (means burdening or embarrassing a third person)
• Colo. RPC 8.4(a) and (c) (indirect violations and dishonesty or misrepresentation)

Cases:

• People v. Hohertz, 102 P.3d 1019 (Colo. 2004), broad interpretation of client information
• In re Anonymous, 654 N.E.2d 1128 (Ind. 1995), disclosure of publicly available client information
• Lawyer Disciplinary Board v. McGraw, 194 W. Va. 788, 461 S.E.2d 850 (1995), public records and confidentiality

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Formal Opinion 480: confidentiality and lawyer blogging or public commentary
• ABA Formal Opinion 479: the generally known exception for former-client information
• Alaska Ethics Opinion 95-1: shop talk and sharing public documents

See also

• ABA Formal Op. 480: Confidentiality and Public Commentary
• CBA Formal Op. 136: Responding to Client Online Commentary
• CBA Formal Op. 119: Metadata

Source

• Landing page: https://www.cobar.org/ethicsopinions
• Original PDF: Colorado Formal Ethics Opinion 130