What did the committee say about client notice and significant original documents in a letter about file disposition?

Plain-English summary

The letter does not reproduce the lawyer's question. The committee said the then-current rules did not address the issue raised in the lawyer's letter.

The committee said the lawyer should make a reasonable effort to contact clients and allow a reasonable response period. It suggested public notice for clients who could not be reached personally. It also called for reviewing files and returning significant original documents to clients. If they could not be returned, the committee assumed they would be transferred to the successor firm. Significant originals should not be destroyed.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1990, before North Dakota's 2006 revisions to its Rules of Professional Conduct. The later North Dakota Opinion 06-05 states: “On August 1, 2006, material changes to N.D.R. Prof. Conduct 1.10(a) will take effect.” 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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.

Common questions

Q: What notice did the committee describe?

A: It called for a reasonable effort to contact clients and reasonable time to respond, with possible public notice for clients who could not be reached personally.

Q: What about significant original documents?

A: The committee said to return them to clients. If return was not possible, it assumed the documents would be transferred to the successor firm. Significant originals should not be destroyed.

Background and rules framework

The response said the current professional-conduct rules did not directly address the question raised in the letter. Its guidance concerned notice and significant originals.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.sband.org/page/ethics_opinions
• Original PDF: https://web.archive.org/web/20250000000000id_/https://www.sband.org/resource/resmgr/docs/for_lawyers/90-06.pdf

Original opinion text

Best-effort transcription from a scanned PDF. Minor errors may remain; the linked PDF is authoritative.

June 27, 1990

The Ethics Committee of the State Bar Association of North Dakota has addressed and discussed the question raised in your letter of June 1, 1990.

It is the opinion of the Committee that the current rules of professional responsibility do not address the issue you raised in your letter. The Committee is of the opinion that you would be obligated to make a reasonable effort to contact clients and give them a reasonable time in which to respond to the notice. If some clients cannot be personally notified, you might want to consider some type of a public notice by way of a notice in the local paper.

The Committee is also of the opinion that you must make an effort to review the files to assure that all original documents which are significant to the client would be returned to the client. If they cannot be returned, then we would assume that they would be transferred to the successor law firm. You must assure that originals which are of significant importance would not be destroyed.

This letter opinion is issued to you for advisory purposes only and is not binding on you, the Court's of North Dakota, the Disciplinary Board, Grievance Committees, or any other member of the Bar of the State of North Dakota.

Sincerely,

Paul F. Richard
Chairman-Ethics Committee
State Bar Association of North Dakota
cc: Sherry King