Is it unethical for a lawyer to secretly tape-record a meeting with a government agency investigating the lawyer's client?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1992. 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
Opinion 229 (adopted June 16, 1992) arose from an inspector general's office of a federal agency that was conducting a formal administrative and employment investigation of an employee, who had received a non-prosecution assurance and was represented by a D.C. Bar member. During the preliminary phase of the interview, while ground rules were being explained, the interview was terminated, and the inquirer came to believe the employee's attorney had been surreptitiously recording the proceeding, including the preliminary phase. The agency had agreed to tape the formal portion and to provide a copy. The inquirer asked whether secretly taping the preliminary phase was unethical.
Assuming the recording was legal, the committee addressed only the ethics question under Rule 8.4(c). It distinguished its earlier Opinion 178, where a lawyer who obtained another lawyer's consent to interview that lawyer's client failed to disclose that he intended to record the interview, undermining the consent and lulling the client into "a false sense of security and confidentiality." Here no question of contacting a represented party arose, and the agency had no basis to expect that the preliminary discussions would not be memorialized and used to support a claim against it. The committee noted that ABA Formal Opinion 337 (1974) had treated attorney recording as per se unethical in almost all circumstances under the former Code and Canon 9, that the broad holding had been criticized, and that several state bars had recognized exceptions.
The committee declined to adopt a per se rule, holding instead that the circumstances must be evaluated to decide whether the particular conduct involved dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Because the agency expected to tape at least the formal part of the hearing and had no reasonable expectation that statements made during the preliminary or formal phase were secret or confidential as to the employee, the committee concluded that, absent affirmative misrepresentations about the taping, there was nothing unethical in the employee's attorney having recorded the discussions, conduct that could be a prudent protection for the client.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1992, before the District of Columbia's adoption of the 2007 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.
Common questions
Q: Was secretly recording the agency meeting an ethics violation?
A: No. The committee concluded that, absent affirmative misrepresentations about the taping, a lawyer who recorded the agency's investigation meeting committed no violation of Rule 8.4(c).
Q: Did the lawyer have to tell the agency he was recording?
A: No, on these facts. The committee concluded the agency had no reasonable expectation that the discussions were confidential, so silence about the recording was not deceitful absent an affirmative misrepresentation.
Q: Did the committee adopt a flat ban on lawyers secretly recording?
A: No. The committee declined to adopt a per se rule, holding instead that the circumstances must be evaluated to decide whether the particular recording involved dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.
Q: How was this different from Opinion 178?
A: The committee distinguished Opinion 178, where a lawyer obtained another lawyer's consent to interview that lawyer's client without disclosing he would record it; here no represented party's consent was at issue and the agency had no expectation of confidentiality.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interpreted D.C. Rule 8.4(c), which makes it professional misconduct to engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation (the successor to the former Code's DR 1-102(A)(4)). The committee read the rule to require a fact-specific inquiry rather than a per se prohibition on surreptitious recording, contrasting ABA Formal Opinion 337 (1974), which had treated attorney recording as per se unethical under the former Code and Canon 9.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- D.C. RPC 8.4(c) / Model Rule 8.4 (misconduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation)
Other opinions cited:
- ABA Formal Op. 337 (1974): attorney recording is per se unethical in almost all circumstances (the broad holding the committee declined to follow)
- D.C. Opinion 178: failure to disclose an intent to record an interview undermined a represented party's informed consent
- State-bar treatments of surreptitious recording, including Arizona Op. 90-02 (1990), Kentucky Op. E-279 (1984), Idaho Op. 130 (1989), and Utah Op. 90
See also
- ABA Formal Op. 01-422: Secretly Recording Conversations
- NYC Bar Op. 1995-10: Secret Taping of Conversations With Adversaries
- CO Bar Op. 112: Surreptitious Recording
Source
- Landing page: https://www.dcbar.org/for-lawyers/legal-ethics/ethics-opinions-210-present/ethics-opinion-229
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1992 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.