What are a Florida lawyer's duties regarding metadata in electronic documents sent to or received from another lawyer?

Plain-English summary

At the Board of Governors' direction, the committee addressed the ethical duties of lawyers who send and receive electronic documents that may contain metadata, which it describes as "information about information" that can reveal a document's author, its drafting history, deletions, prior versions, and reviewer comments, and may thereby expose confidential or privileged client information the sender did not intend to reveal. The opinion expressly does not address metadata in documents subject to discovery, such as the lawyer acting as a conduit to produce documents in response to a discovery request.

The opinion applies Rule 4-1.6(a), which requires lawyers to protect information relating to the representation, reasoning that to maintain confidentiality lawyers must take reasonable steps to protect confidential information in all documents leaving the office, including electronic documents. It then applies Rule 4-4.4(b), which requires a lawyer who receives a document the lawyer knows or reasonably should know was inadvertently sent to promptly notify the sender, and whose comment treats email and other electronic transmissions as "documents" and leaves additional steps (such as returning the document or whether privilege was waived) to law beyond the rules.

The committee sets out three duties. First, the sending lawyer must take reasonable steps to safeguard the confidentiality of communications sent electronically to other lawyers and third parties and to protect all confidential information, including metadata. Second, the recipient lawyer must not try to obtain from metadata information relating to the sender's client that the recipient knows or should know is not intended for the recipient; any such metadata is to be treated as confidential information the sending lawyer did not intend to transmit. Third, if the recipient lawyer inadvertently obtains metadata the recipient knows or should know was not intended for them, the lawyer must promptly notify the sender. The committee adds that these obligations may require continuing training and education in the use of technology to protect client information under Rule 4-1.6(a), consistent with the competence duty in Rule 4-1.1.

In practice

Under the Florida rules as they stood at the time of this 2006 opinion, the duties around metadata split between sender and recipient. The opinion makes the sending lawyer responsible for taking reasonable steps to protect confidential information, including metadata, in documents that leave the office, grounding that in Rule 4-1.6(a). It bars the receiving lawyer from mining metadata the lawyer knows or should know was not intended for them, treating any such metadata as confidential information not intended to be transmitted, and requires prompt notice to the sender under Rule 4-4.4(b) if it is inadvertently obtained. The opinion notes these duties may require continuing technology training under the competence rule, and it does not address metadata in the discovery context.

Common questions

Q: Can a Florida lawyer mine an opposing lawyer's document for hidden metadata?

A: No, where the lawyer knows or should know the metadata was not intended for them. The opinion concludes the recipient must not try to obtain such metadata and must treat it as confidential information the sender did not intend to transmit.

Q: What must a lawyer do before sending an electronic document?

A: Per the opinion, the sending lawyer must take reasonable steps to safeguard the confidentiality of the communication and protect all confidential information, including metadata, that may be included.

Q: What if a lawyer accidentally sees metadata that wasn't meant for them?

A: The opinion concludes that, under Rule 4-4.4(b), the lawyer must promptly notify the sender of receipt of the information.

Q: Does this opinion cover metadata in documents produced in discovery?

A: No. The opinion states it does not address metadata in the context of documents subject to discovery under applicable rules of court or law.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Rule 4-1.6 (confidentiality of information, Model Rule 1.6) and Rule 4-4.4(b) (inadvertently sent documents, Model Rule 4.4) of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar, with reference to the competence and communication duties of Rules 4-1.1, 4-1.2, and 4-1.4 (Model Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.4). It draws on New York Opinions 749 and 782 and on commentary about metadata.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 1.6 / Fla. Rule 4-1.6 (confidentiality of information)
• Model Rule 4.4 / Fla. Rule 4-4.4(b) (inadvertently sent documents)
• Model Rules 1.1, 1.2, 1.4 / Fla. Rules 4-1.1, 4-1.2, 4-1.4 (competence; scope; communication)

Cases:

• Williams v. Sprint/United Management Company, 230 F.R.D. 640 (D. Kan. 2005), discussion of metadata

Other opinions cited:

• Fla. Ethics Op. 93-3; New York Op. 749 (2001); New York Op. 782 (2004)

See also

• Florida Bar Op. 10-2: Confidentiality on Devices With Storage Media
• Florida Bar Op. 12-3: Cloud Computing
• Florida Bar Op. 06-1: Electronic Storage of Law Firm Files

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-06-2/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-06-2.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 06-2
September 15, 2006
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
A lawyer who is sending an electronic document should take care to ensure the
confidentiality of all information contained in the document, including metadata. A lawyer
receiving an electronic document should not try to obtain information from metadata that the
lawyer knows or should know is not intended for the receiving lawyer. A lawyer who
inadvertently receives information via metadata in an electronic document should notify the
sender of the information’s receipt. The opinion is not intended to address metadata in the
context of discovery documents.
RPC: 4-1.1, 4-1.2, 4-1.4, 4-1.6, 4-4.4(b)
Opinions: 93-3, New York Opinion 749, New York Opinion 782
Case: Williams v. Sprint/United Management Company, 230 F.R.D. 640, 96 Fair
Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1775 (2005)
Misc: David Hricik and Robert B. Jueneman, “The Transmission and Receipt of
Invisible Confidential Information,” 15 The Professional Lawyer No. 1, p. 18
(Spring 2004), The Sedona Guidelines: Best Practice Guidelines and
Commentary for Managing Information and Records in the Electronic Age,
Appendix F (The Sedona Conference Working Group Series, Sept. 2005 Series),
Michael Silver, “Microsoft Office metadata: What you don’t see can hurt you”
Tech Republic Gartner 2001, Brian D. Zall, “Metadata: Hidden Information in
Microsoft Work Documents and its Ethical Implications,” 33 Colo. Lawyer
No.10, p. 53 (Oct. 2004)
The Board of Governors of The Florida Bar has directed the committee to issue an
opinion to determine ethical duties when lawyers send and receive electronic documents in the
course of representing their clients. These ethical responsibilities are now becoming issues in the
practice of law where lawyers may be able to “mine” metadata from electronic documents.
Lawyers may also receive electronic documents that reveal metadata without any effort on the
part of the receiving attorney. Metadata is information about information and has been defined
as “information describing the history, tracking, or management of an electronic document.”1
Metadata can contain information about the author of a document, and can show, among other
things, the changes made to a document during its drafting, including what was deleted from or
1 The Sedona Guidelines: Best Practice Guidelines and Commentary for Managing Information and
Records in the Electronic Age, Appendix F (The Sedona Conference Working Group Series, Sept. 2005
Series), available at http://www.thesedonaconference.org. The Microsoft Word and Microsoft Office
online sites also contain detailed information about metadata, showing examples of metadata that may be
stored in Microsoft applications and explaining how to remove this information from a final document.
Examples of metadata that may be hidden in Microsoft documents include the name of the author, the
identification of the computer on which the document was typed, the names of previous document authors
and revisions to the document, including prior versions of a final document.
1

Page 2

added to the final version of the document, as well as comments of the various reviewers of the
document. Metadata may thereby reveal confidential and privileged client information that the
sender of the document or electronic communication does not wish to be revealed. 2
This opinion does not address metadata in the context of documents that are subject to
discovery under applicable rules of court or law. For example, the opinion does not address the
role of the lawyer acting as a conduit to produce documents in response to a discovery request.
The Florida Rules of Professional Conduct require lawyers to protect information that
relates to the representation of a client. Rule 4-1.6(a) provides as follows:
(a) Consent Required to Reveal Information. A lawyer shall not reveal
information relating to representation of a client except as stated in subdivisions
(b), (c), and (d), unless the client gives informed consent.
The Comment to Rule 4-1.6 further provides:
A fundamental principle in the client-lawyer relationship is that the lawyer
maintain confidentiality of information relating to the representation. The client
is thereby encouraged to communicate fully and frankly with the lawyer even as
to embarrassing or legally damaging subject matter.
In order to maintain confidentiality under Rule 4-1.6(a), Florida lawyers must take
reasonable steps to protect confidential information in all types of documents and information
that leave the lawyers’ offices, including electronic documents and electronic communications
with other lawyers and third parties.
Rule 4-4.4(b) addresses inadvertent disclosure of information and provides as follows:
A lawyer who receives a document relating to the representation of the lawyer’s
client and knows or reasonably should know that the document was inadvertently
sent shall promptly notify the sender.
The comment to rule 4-4.4 provides additional guidance:
Subdivision (b) recognizes that lawyers sometimes receive documents that
were mistakenly sent or produced by opposing parties or their lawyers. If a
lawyer knows or reasonably should know that such a document was sent
inadvertently, then this rule requires the lawyer to promptly notify the sender in
2 Further references regarding metadata and eliminating metadata from documents may be found on
Microsoft’s user support websites at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/290945 and
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/q223790/. See also, Michael Silver, “Microsoft Office metadata: What
you don’t see can hurt you” Tech Republic Gartner 2001 http://techrepublic.com.com/5100-1035_11-
5034376.html. The court’s discussion of metadata in Williams v. Sprint/United Management Company,
230 F.R.D. 640, 96 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 1775 (2005) is also very helpful.
2

Page 3

order to permit that person to take protective measures. Whether the lawyer is
required to take additional steps, such as returning the original document, is a
matter of law beyond the scope of these rules, as is the question of whether the
privileged status of a document has been waived. Similarly, this rule does not
address the legal duties of a lawyer who receives a document that the lawyer
knows or reasonably should know may have been wrongfully obtained by the
sending person. For purposes of this rule, “document” includes e-mail or other
electronic modes of transmission subject to being read or put into readable form.
Some lawyers may choose to return a document unread, for example, when
the lawyer learns before receiving the document that it was inadvertently sent to
the wrong address. Where a lawyer is not required by applicable law to do so, the
decision to voluntarily return such a document is a matter of professional
judgment ordinarily reserved to the lawyer. See rules 4-1.2 and 4-1.4.
The duties of a lawyer when sending an electronic document to another lawyer and when
receiving an electronic document from another lawyer are as follows:
(1) It is the sending lawyer’s obligation to take reasonable steps to safeguard
the confidentiality of all communications sent by electronic means to other
lawyers and third parties and to protect from other lawyers and third parties all
confidential information, including information contained in metadata, that may
be included in such electronic communications.
(2) It is the recipient lawyer’s concomitant obligation, upon receiving an
electronic communication or document from another lawyer, not to try to obtain
from metadata information relating to the representation of the sender’s client that
the recipient knows or should know is not intended for the recipient. Any such
metadata is to be considered by the receiving lawyer as confidential information
which the sending lawyer did not intend to transmit. See, Ethics Opinion 93-3
and Rule 4-4.4(b), Florida Rules of Professional Conduct, effective May 22,
2006.3
(3) If the recipient lawyer inadvertently obtains information from metadata
that the recipient knows or should know was not intended for the recipient, the
lawyer must “promptly notify the sender.” Id.
3 The ethical implications of such hidden information in electronic documents have been discussed in
legal journals and ethics opinions in other states, The New York Bar Association has issued Opinion 749
(2001), which concluded that attorneys may not ethically use computer software applications to
surreptitiously “mine” documents or to trace e-mail. New York Ethics Opinion 782 (2004), further
concluded that New York lawyers have a duty to use reasonable care when transmitting documents by e-
mail to prevent the disclosure of metadata containing client confidences or secrets. Legal commentators
have published articles about ethical issues involving metadata. David Hricik and Robert B. Jueneman,
“The Transmission and Receipt of Invisible Confidential Information,” 15 The Professional Lawyer No.
1, p. 18 (Spring 2004). See also, Brian D. Zall, “Metadata: Hidden Information in Microsoft Work
Documents and its Ethical Implications,” 33 Colo. Lawyer No.10, p. 53 (Oct. 2004).
3

Page 4

The foregoing obligations may necessitate a lawyer’s continuing training and education
in the use of technology in transmitting and receiving electronic documents in order to protect
client information under Rule 4-1.6(a). As set forth in the Comment to Rule 4-1.1, regarding
competency:
To maintain the requisite knowledge and skill [for competent representation],
a lawyer should engage in continuing study and education.
4