Can a lawyer blind-copy a client on emails to opposing counsel after opposing counsel objects?
NY State Bar Ethics Opinion 1076: Blind-copying a client on email to opposing counsel
Short answer: A lawyer may blind-copy (bcc) a client on email correspondence with opposing counsel even after opposing counsel objects, because the lawyer is the client's agent and the practice is not deceptive; the committee notes practical reasons to forward the email to the client instead of using bcc.
Disclaimer: This is an advisory ethics opinion. Advisory opinions are not binding; they interpret the New York State Bar Association's rules of professional conduct and are persuasive authority. This summary is for research purposes only and is not legal advice. Verify current rules before acting on any specific guidance.
About this page: The plain-English summary and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official opinion. We do not reproduce the opinion text on this page; follow the linked source for the official text, which controls.
Plain-English summary
Opposing counsel emailed the inquiring lawyer to say he did not consent to the lawyer blind-copying the lawyer's own client on the lawyer's emails to opposing counsel. The inquiry asked whether bcc'ing the client over that objection is ethical (¶¶ 1-2).
The committee started from the premise that two opposing lawyers have no confidentiality relationship, so a lawyer who receives correspondence from opposing counsel is not obligated to keep it from the client and needs no consent to share it. Because a lawyer is the client's agent, opposing counsel should expect that the lawyer may share matter-related correspondence with the client (¶ 3). The committee tied this to Rule 1.4's duty to keep the client reasonably informed of material developments and to provide information needed for informed decisions (¶ 4), and traced the long practice of copying clients on correspondence from carbon copies to photocopies to email (¶ 5).
On the central question, whether a bcc is "deceit" under Rule 8.4(c), the committee read "deceit" by its common meaning of a purpose to deceive or give a false impression. It concluded that because the lawyer is the client's agent, sending the client copies of correspondence with opposing counsel is not deceptive, and opposing counsel may not reasonably assume the lawyer will not share communications with the client (¶¶ 7-8). The committee added practical cautions: a "cc" can expose the client's email address and may look like an invitation to contact the client; a "bcc" risks the client hitting "reply all" and inadvertently disclosing confidential information to the adversary, citing Charm v. Kohn (¶¶ 10-12). For those reasons it suggested forwarding the email to the client as a better practice than bcc (¶ 13).
In practice
Under the New York rules as they stood at the time of the opinion, the committee concluded that bcc'ing one's own client on correspondence with opposing counsel is permitted and is not deceptive, and that opposing counsel's objection does not change the analysis. The opinion distinguishes this situation from sending correspondence to the other lawyer's client, which would implicate Rule 4.2's no-contact rule (¶ 8 n.2). Its practical observations about forwarding rather than using bcc are framed as reasons the committee identifies, keyed to the risk of an inadvertent "reply all," not as rule requirements.
Common questions
Q: Is bcc'ing your own client on an email to opposing counsel deceptive?
A: No. The opinion concludes that because the lawyer is the client's agent, sharing correspondence with the client is not "deceit" under Rule 8.4(c), and opposing counsel cannot reasonably assume otherwise (¶¶ 7-8).
Q: Does opposing counsel's objection change anything?
A: No. The committee concluded a lawyer needs no consent from opposing counsel to copy the client, because the two opposing lawyers have no confidentiality relationship (¶ 3).
Q: Why does the committee suggest forwarding instead of bcc?
A: To avoid a foreseeable "reply all" by the client that could disclose confidential information to the adversary, and to avoid exposing the client's email address; the committee cites Charm v. Kohn on the reply-all risk (¶¶ 11-12).
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets New York Rules 1.4(b) and (c) (communication with the client), 8.4(c) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation), and 4.2 (the no-contact rule), corresponding to ABA Model Rules 1.4, 8.4, and 4.2. The decisive provision is Rule 8.4(c): the committee reads "deceit" by its ordinary meaning and finds no intent to mislead in an agent sharing matter correspondence with the principal.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- MR 1.4 / NY RPC 1.4(b), (c) (keeping the client reasonably informed)
- MR 8.4 / NY RPC 8.4(c) (dishonesty, fraud, deceit, misrepresentation)
- MR 4.2 / NY RPC 4.2 (communication with a represented person)
Cases:
- Charm v. Kohn, 27 Mass. L. Rep. 421 (Mass. Super. Sept. 30, 2010), bcc'ing a client created a foreseeable risk of an inadvertent reply-all
Other opinions cited:
- N.Y. City 2009-1: copying the opposing lawyer's client would violate the no-contact rule
See also
- NY State Bar Op. 1080: Contacting a public official represented by the municipality's lawyer
- NY State Bar Op. 1078: Confirming to a former client's son that no will exists
Source
- Landing page: https://nysba.org/ethics-opinion-1076/