Ezel / Ethics Opinions / ISBA
ISBA 2019

In a lawyer's own divorce, can the lawyer hand over client trust-account and billing records the spouse's attorney requests in discovery?

Short answer: Not without a court order. The opinion concludes a lawyer may not produce client trust-account, ledger, and billing records in response to a discovery request absent a court order, and even then must disclose only as reasonably necessary and seek protection.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2019. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 2019
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page) is the authoritative source for any reliance.

Plain-English summary

A lawyer and spouse are divorcing. The spouse's lawyer serves a request to produce the lawyer's client trust-account bank records, ledgers showing all trust receipts and disbursements, and all billing statements sent to current and former clients. The committee is asked whether producing the records absent a court order would violate the duty of confidentiality, and whether redacted production would be permissible.

The opinion concludes the lawyer may not voluntarily produce the records. Rule 1.6 protects all information relating to the representation of a client, and Rule 1.9(c) extends that protection to former clients; client trust-account and billing records contain such information (client identities, amounts, and the fact and details of representation), and Rule 1.15 records do not lose their confidential character simply because they are financial. Because the discovery request is not itself a court order and the disclosure exceptions do not apply, the lawyer must not produce the records on the request alone. The opinion treats redaction as insufficient to cure the problem where the records still reveal protected client information.

Where a court orders production, the opinion holds the lawyer may then reveal information, but only to the extent reasonably necessary to comply with the order, and should pursue protective action (such as a protective order or in camera review) when appropriate to limit exposure of client information. The opinion frames the lawyer's own divorce interest against the lawyer's continuing duties to clients and former clients.

In practice

Under this opinion, a lawyer served with a discovery request in the lawyer's own divorce should not hand over client trust-account, ledger, or billing records without a court order; the opinion holds Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c) protect that information and a request to produce is not a court order. It holds redaction does not by itself authorize production where protected client information remains. If a court orders production, the opinion holds the lawyer may disclose only what is reasonably necessary to comply and should seek protective measures to limit the disclosure of client information.

Common questions

Q: Can I produce my client trust and billing records because my spouse's lawyer requested them in our divorce?

A: No. The opinion concludes a discovery request is not a court order, and Rules 1.6 and 1.9(c) bar voluntarily producing records containing client information without one.

Q: Can I just redact the records and produce them?

A: The opinion treats redaction as insufficient where the records still reveal protected client information; absent a court order, the records should not be produced.

Q: What if a court orders me to produce them?

A: The opinion concludes you may then disclose only to the extent reasonably necessary to comply with the order and should seek protective action when appropriate.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Illinois Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6 (confidentiality), Rule 1.9(c) (former-client information), Rule 1.15 (trust-account and client-property records), and related Rules 1.7 and 1.16, in the context of compelled disclosure. These correspond to Model Rules 1.6, 1.9, and 1.15.

Citations and references

Rules:

  • Illinois RPC 1.6 (MR 1.6): confidentiality of information
  • Illinois RPC 1.9(c) (MR 1.9): duties to former clients
  • Illinois RPC 1.15 (MR 1.15): trust-account and client-property records
  • Illinois RPC 1.7, 1.16: conflicts and termination

Other opinions cited:

  • ABA Formal Op. 473 (2016) and 479 (2017); ISBA Op. 97-01 (1997); Nevada Op. 41 (2009): responding to demands for client information

See also

Source

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 2019 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.