Can a North Carolina law firm scan a client's paper file into electronic format and destroy the paper originals before the retention period ends?

Plain-English summary

The opinion addressed a firm that wanted to reduce paper storage. RPC 209 required a lawyer to retain a client's file for six years after the file becomes inactive, allowing destruction during that period only with the client's consent or after notice when the client fails to retrieve the file. The question was whether, before the six years expired, a firm could convert the paper documents in a client's file into an electronic format such as magnetic or optical disks, store the disks, and destroy the original paper file.

The opinion concluded that the firm could, on two conditions. First, original documents with legal significance, such as wills, contracts, and stock certificates, must be culled from the paper file and either stored in a safe place or returned to the client. Second, the documents stored in electronic format must be capable of being reproduced in paper format. It grounded these conditions in Rule 2.8(a)(1) and RPC 209.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1996, before the North Carolina State Bar's adoption of the 2003 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Can a North Carolina firm go paperless with closed client files?

A: Yes. The opinion concluded that a firm may scan paper documents into electronic format and destroy the paper file before the retention period ends, subject to two conditions.

Q: What documents can't simply be scanned and shredded?

A: The opinion concluded that original documents with legal significance, such as wills, contracts, and stock certificates, must be culled and either stored safely or returned to the client.

Q: Does the electronic copy have to be printable?

A: Yes. The opinion concluded that the documents stored electronically must be capable of being reproduced in paper format.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied North Carolina's then-current Rule 2.8(a)(1) on the surrender of client property (corresponding to Model Rule 1.16) together with the file-retention requirements of RPC 209. The safekeeping concern for documents of independent legal significance corresponds to the property-safekeeping duty of Model Rule 1.15.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.16 (surrender of papers and property)
• MR 1.15 (safekeeping property)
• North Carolina Rule 2.8(a)(1)

Other opinions cited:

• RPC 209: six-year file retention and destruction guidelines

See also

• NC Ethics Op. 2001-14: digital check images for trust records
• NC Ethics Op. 2012-13: safekeeping client files after a lawyer's death or disbarment
• NC Ethics Op. RPC 227: returning a former client's file

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/rpc-234/

Original opinion text

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

Inquiry:

RPC 209 requires a lawyer to retain a client's file for six years after the file becomes inactive. During the six years, the file may only be destroyed with the consent of the client or, after notice to the client, the client fails to retrieve the file. Prior to the expiration of the six-year period, may a law firm convert the paper documents in a client's file into an electronic format, such as magnetic or optical disks readable by computer, store the disks, and destroy the original paper file?

Opinion:

Yes, provided: (1) original documents with legal significance, such as wills, contracts, stock certificates, etc., are culled from the paper file and stored in a safe place or returned to the client; and (2) the documents stored in an electronic format can be reproduced in a paper format. Rule 2.8(a)(1) and RPC 209