What must a Missouri lawyer do after learning that a client altered a document produced in discovery?

Plain-English summary

The client produced a copy of a relevant third-party letter in discovery, then told the lawyer that the client had altered the date. Opposing counsel asked to inspect the original, and the client wanted the lawyer to say that the original no longer existed.

The opinion concludes that refusing the inspection request on that basis would assist the client's fraudulent conduct, contrary to Rule 4-1.2(f). Because the altered document had been produced in the pending lawsuit, Rule 4-3.3(b) required reasonable remedial measures to maintain candor to the court.

The first measure was a confidential discussion with the client. The lawyer had to explain the duty of candor and seek the client's cooperation in withdrawing or correcting the document. If the client would not cooperate, the opinion requires further action: seeking the court's permission to withdraw and disclosing the client's conduct to the court, even though the disclosure would reveal information otherwise protected by Rule 4-1.6.

In practice

Under this opinion, the lawyer could not tell opposing counsel that the original was unavailable as the client requested. The lawyer's remedial sequence began with confidential consultation and a request for correction; client refusal triggered withdrawal and disclosure obligations under Rule 4-3.3(b) and (c) and Rule 4-1.16(a).

Common questions

Q: May the lawyer refuse the request to inspect the original letter?

A: No. The opinion states that doing so on the client's proposed basis would assist the client's fraudulent conduct in violation of Rule 4-1.2(f).

Q: What must the lawyer do first?

A: The lawyer must speak confidentially with the client, explain the duty of candor, and seek the client's cooperation in withdrawing or correcting the altered document.

Q: What if the client refuses to correct or withdraw the document?

A: The opinion requires further action, including seeking leave to withdraw and disclosing the client's actions to the court.

Q: Does confidentiality prevent disclosure to the court?

A: No. On these facts, Rule 4-3.3(b) and (c) requires disclosure even though it reveals information otherwise protected by Rule 4-1.6.

Background and rules framework

Rule 4-1.2(f) prevents a lawyer from assisting client fraud. Rule 4-3.3(b), (c), and Comment [10] supply the remedial sequence for conduct related to the proceeding. Rule 4-1.16(a) governs the required effort to withdraw, while Rule 4-3.3 makes the court disclosure duty controlling over otherwise applicable Rule 4-1.6 confidentiality.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Missouri Rule 4-1.2(f) and Comment [9] (assisting fraudulent conduct)
• Missouri Rule 4-3.3(b), (c), and Comment [10] (candor and remedial measures)
• Missouri Rule 4-1.6 (confidentiality)
• Missouri Rule 4-1.16(a) (withdrawal)

Other opinions cited:

• Missouri Informal Opinions 2020-24 and 2020-25: remedial measures for client conduct in litigation

See also

• Rhode Island Op. 2024-08: Withdrawal After a Fraudulent Document
• Virginia Ethics Op. 1093: Fraud on a Tribunal and Co-Counsel
• Nebraska Ethics Op. 12-06: Concealed Assets in Bankruptcy

Source

• Landing page: Missouri Informal Opinion 2026-03

Original opinion text

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

Question: As part of a discovery request, Client produced a copy of a letter Client received from a third party. The letter is relevant to Client’s defense in the underlying lawsuit. Opposing counsel has requested to see the original letter. When Lawyer advised Client of opposing counsel’s request, Client confided to Lawyer that Client had altered the date of the letter on the copy produced. Client wants Lawyer to advise opposing counsel that Client no longer has the original letter. What are Lawyer’s ethical duties?

Answer: Lawyer cannot refuse opposing counsel’s request to view the original document as this would be assisting Client in Client’s fraudulent conduct. Rule 4–1.2(f) and Comment [9] to the Rule. Because Client’s actions relate to the underlying lawsuit, Lawyer must take reasonable remedial measures to assure candor to the Court. Rule 4–3.3(b); see also Informal Opinions 2020–24 and 2020–25. First, Lawyer should speak confidentially with Client, advise Client of Lawyer’s duty of candor to the Court, and seek Client’s cooperation in the withdrawal or correction of the document. Comment [10] to Rule 4–3.3. If this fails, Lawyer is required to take further action. This includes seeking leave from the Court to withdraw from the representation and disclosing to the Court Client’s actions, even though such would reveal information which is otherwise protected by Rule 4–1.6. Id., Rule 4–3.3(b) and (c), and Rule 4–1.16(a).