Can a lawyer view an opposing represented party's public website and send messages through it during litigation?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2026. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Lawyer A discovers that Lawyer B's client has a public website with information that may be relevant to the litigation between the two clients. Lawyer A wants to visit the website and possibly communicate with representatives of the adverse party over the internet. The opinion addresses whether Lawyer A may visit the website, and whether Lawyer A may communicate via the website with the adverse party's representatives. It answers the first yes, qualified, and the second "see discussion."
On visiting the website, the opinion applies Oregon RPC 4.2 and explains that the rule's purpose is to ensure represented persons have their lawyer's counsel when discussing the subject of the representation with the adverse lawyer, and that the rule applies the same way regardless of the form of communication (citing In re Hedrick and In re Lewelling). Accessing an adversary's public website is no different from reading a magazine article or a book that adversary wrote; the risks Oregon RPC 4.2 guards against are not implicated, so there is no violation. A lawyer reading information posted for general public consumption is not communicating with the represented owner, and a site can be "public" even if it charges an access or subscription fee. (The opinion expresses no view on access obtained through deception, citing OSB Formal Ethics Op. No. 2005-173.)
On internet communications, the opinion treats written internet messages as analogous to traditional mail or messenger service, subject to Oregon RPC 4.2. The question becomes whether the person communicated with is a "represented person" under OSB Formal Ethics Op. No. 2005-80. If Lawyer A knows the person is part of the adverse party's management or is a nonmanagerial employee whose conduct Lawyer A seeks to attribute to the party, the communication is prohibited, and Lawyer A cannot use the internet to invade the privilege. Communicating only with a nonmanagerial employee who is a mere fact witness, without invading privilege, is permitted. Finally, the opinion concludes that communicating with someone Lawyer A does not "know" to be a represented person, but who in fact is, is permissible, given the rule's knowledge requirement.
In practice
The opinion holds that the medium does not change the Oregon RPC 4.2 analysis: passively reading public web content is not contact, while sending an online message is contact governed by the same represented-person test used for any written communication. Per the opinion, the analysis turns on whether the recipient is a represented person under the entity-contact framework and on the lawyer's actual knowledge of that status. Verify the current text of Oregon RPC 4.2 before relying on any specific point.
Common questions
Q: Can a lawyer look at the opposing party's public website during litigation?
A: Yes. The opinion concludes that viewing a public website is like reading a published article and is not communicating with the represented owner, so it does not violate Oregon RPC 4.2, even if the site charges an access fee.
Q: Can the lawyer send a message through the website to the other party?
A: It depends. The opinion concludes that an online message to someone the lawyer knows is a represented person (management, or an employee whose conduct is at issue) violates Oregon RPC 4.2; messaging a nonmanagerial fact-witness employee without invading privilege does not.
Q: What if the lawyer does not know the person is represented?
A: Then it is permissible. The opinion concludes that communicating with someone the lawyer does not know to be a represented person, but who in fact is, does not violate the rule, given its knowledge requirement.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets Oregon RPC 4.2 (communication with a represented person), corresponding to Model Rule 4.2, applying the entity "represented person" framework of OSB Formal Ethics Op. No. 2005-80 to electronic contact, and treats public-website access as non-communication.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Oregon RPC 4.2 / Model Rule 4.2 (communication with represented persons; same rule for all media)
Cases:
- In re Hedrick, 312 Or 442, 822 P2d 1187 (1991)
- In re Lewelling, 296 Or 702, 678 P2d 1229 (1984)
Other opinions cited:
- OSB Formal Ethics Op. No. 2005-80 (rev 2026) (who is a "represented person" within an entity)
- OSB Formal Ethics Op. No. 2005-144 (rev 2026) (scope of the "authorized by law" exception)
- OSB Formal Ethics Op. No. 2005-173 (access obtained through deception)
See also
- OSB Ethics Op. 2005-80: Contacting Corporate Employees
- OSB Ethics Op. 2005-152: Contacting Current and Former State-Agency Employees
- OSB Ethics Op. 2005-144: Obtaining Public Records From a Represented Public Body
Source
- Landing page: https://www.osbar.org/ethics/toc.html
- Original PDF: https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2005-164.pdf
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 2026 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.