May a Missouri lawyer who does not know how to redact PDFs rely entirely on nonlawyer staff to redact and e-file pleadings?

Plain-English summary

The lawyer did not know how to use PDF software for redaction and asked whether nonlawyer staff could handle all redactions and e-filing. Rule 4-5.3 makes the lawyer responsible for documents e-filed at the lawyer's direction, including nonlawyer conduct that would violate the rules if performed by the lawyer.

Rule 4-3.4(c) requires compliance with tribunal rules, including applicable redaction requirements. Rule 4-1.1 requires the lawyer to understand both what must be redacted and the relevant technology used in practice, including PDF preparation for Case.net, even if staff operate the software day to day.

The opinion requires appropriate training and supervision of staff and lawyer review of documents before e-filing. If an insufficiently redacted filing occurs, Rule 4-5.3(c)(2) requires reasonable remedial measures to remove or correct it. Depending on the circumstances, Rules 4-1.4 and 4-1.6 may also require telling the client about a confidentiality breach.

The opinion does not interpret the underlying court rules, statutes, or other redaction law, which falls outside the scope of an informal professional-conduct opinion.

In practice

Under this opinion, delegating PDF work does not delegate ethical responsibility for the filing. Competence covers the redaction requirements and technology, supervision covers the staff work, and the lawyer's duties continue through prefiling review and post-error remediation.

Common questions

Q: May nonlawyer staff perform redaction and e-filing work?

A: Yes, but the lawyer may not rely on staff entirely and remains responsible for the filing.

Q: Must the lawyer personally know how the relevant technology works?

A: The opinion requires the lawyer to understand the technology used in the practice, including PDF preparation for Case.net, even if staff use it daily.

Q: What review is required before filing?

A: The opinion directs the lawyer to review the document for accuracy and compliance with redaction requirements.

Q: What follows an improperly redacted filing?

A: The lawyer must take reasonable remedial measures to remove or correct it and, when the circumstances require, address client communication and confidentiality duties.

Background and rules framework

Rule 4-5.3(c) governs responsibility for nonlawyer conduct and remediation. Rules 4-1.1 and 4-3.4(c) require technological competence and compliance with tribunal rules. Rules 4-1.4 and 4-1.6 may govern notice after a confidentiality breach.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Missouri Rule 4-5.3(c) (responsibility for nonlawyer assistants)
• Missouri Rule 4-3.4(c) (compliance with tribunal rules)
• Missouri Rule 4-1.1 and Comment [6] (competence and technology)
• Missouri Rules 4-1.4 and 4-1.6, Comments [15] and [16] (client notice and confidentiality)

Other opinions cited:

• Missouri Informal Opinion 2018-09: relevant technology
• Missouri Informal Opinions 2022-07, 2021-03, 2020-26, and 2017-02: remediation and confidentiality

See also

• Missouri Informal Op. 2024-10: Redaction Failure and Reporting
• Missouri Informal Op. 2024-08: Good-Faith Redaction
• Missouri Informal Op. 2024-07: Over-Redaction and Competence

Source

• Landing page: Missouri Informal Opinion 2024-09

Original opinion text

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

Question: Lawyer does not know how to use PDF software to redact information in pleadings. Missouri Supreme Court Operating Rule 2.02, related Missouri Supreme Court Rules, and Missouri statutes, or other law, hereinafter referred to collectively as “redaction requirements,” must be fulfilled when pleadings are filed. May Lawyer simply rely on a member of Lawyer’s nonlawyer staff to perform the redactions and e-file pleadings?

Answer: Lawyer may not entirely rely on nonlawyer staff to perform redactions and e-file pleadings, as Lawyer is responsible for documents e-filed on behalf of Lawyer at Lawyer’s direction per Rule 4–5.3.

Rule 4–5.3(c) – Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants, provides that the lawyer is responsible for the conduct of the nonlawyer if that conduct would be a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct if the lawyer had engaged in that conduct. Rule 4–3.4(c) requires that Lawyer comply with rules of a tribunal, which would include fulfilling the requirements of the redaction rules. Further, Rule 4–5.3(c) goes on to state that if “(1) the lawyer orders, or with the knowledge of the specific conduct, ratifies the conduct involved; or (2) …knows of the conduct at a time when its consequences can be avoided or mitigated but fails to take reasonable remedial action[,]” the lawyer is ethically responsible for the conduct of that nonlawyer.

Rule 4–1.1– Competence states: “[a] lawyer shall provide competent representation to a client. Competent representation requires the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.” Comment [6] to Rule 4–1.1 provides guidance on maintaining competence, and notes that “[t]o maintain the requisite knowledge and skill, a lawyer should keep abreast of changes in the law and its practice, including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology, engage in continuing study and education, and comply with all continuing legal education requirements to which the lawyer is subject.” As part of the duty of competence, Lawyer should understand the relevant technology used in Lawyer’s practice, including PDF software used for preparing documents for e-filing through Case.net. See also Informal Opinion 2018–09. While Lawyer may not use that technology day-to-day and may employ various nonlawyer assistants who work with that PFD software and assist Lawyer with e-filing, Lawyer is still responsible for understanding what information is required to be redacted and ensuring that the filings and redactions are completed in accordance with the redaction requirements as part of the duty of competence per Rules 4–1.1 and 4–5.3.

If Lawyer asks a nonlawyer assistant to e-file a document on the Lawyer’s behalf, pursuant to Rule 4–5.3(c)(1), Lawyer is responsible for the contents of that filing whether it is redacted properly or not. Lawyer should appropriately train and supervise nonlawyer support staff assisting with document creation and e-filing on behalf of Lawyer, and Lawyer should review documents prior to e-filing with the court to ensure accuracy. In the event an improperly redacted filing is made, pursuant to Rule 4–5.3(c)(2), Lawyer should take reasonable remedial measures both within the applicable Rules to remove and or correct that filing, and, depending on the circumstances, possibly to advise the client as to a breach of confidentiality in accordance with Rules 4–1.4 and 4–1.6, Comments [15] and [16]. See also Informal Opinions 2022–07, 2021–03, 2020–26, and 2017–02.

Pursuant to Rule 5.30(c), this office may only provide informal opinions regarding a lawyer’s prospective conduct pursuant to Rules 4, 5, and 6. This office cannot interpret other Rules or law, including the redaction requirements, nor can it provide legal advice. However, compliance with the redaction requirements is certainly part of a lawyer’s responsibilities pursuant to Rule 4, the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct.