Could a lawyer destroy or release a disputed bill of sale after one transaction party objected?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1992. Ask about yours and see what the current North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A lawyer drafted a bill of sale for a property transaction involving a buyer and seller. Years later, after a fire, one party directed the lawyer to destroy the file and release no copies; the other party and investigators sought a copy. The committee said the limited facts did not permit a reliable determination of the exact attorney-client relationship.
It treated the bill of sale as property created for both parties and applied Rule 1.15 to its safekeeping. It said the direction against release bound the lawyer, while the request to destroy the file did not. The committee said providing another copy to the other party in the face of the most recent no-release direction would violate Rule 1.15, although that party had received a copy earlier.
Because a legal action was pending and the parties' status was uncertain, the committee described retaining the file and giving access only under a proper subpoena or court order. It also mentioned depositing the file with a court under an order, with notice to both parties, as an alternative. It said further facts and contract-law analysis would be needed to identify any exclusive client.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1992, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Did the paying party's destruction instruction control?
A: No. The committee said the lawyer had a right and obligation to maintain the file.
Q: Could the lawyer give another copy to the other transaction party?
A: The committee said that, on the facts supplied, doing so after the no-release instruction would violate Rule 1.15.
Q: Did the committee definitively identify the lawyer's sole client?
A: No. It said the limited facts prevented a reliable determination and further facts and contract-law analysis were needed.
Background and rules framework
The committee identified Rule 1.15 as governing safekeeping of the bill of sale. It discussed Rule 1.7's possible joint-representation conflict but said that rule did not directly decide the document's present disposition. It explained why Rules 1.1 and 1.6 did not resolve the question on the facts presented.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- North Dakota Rule 1.15, safekeeping of the disputed document.
- North Dakota Rule 1.7, possible joint-representation conflict.
- North Dakota Rules 1.1 and 1.6, discussed but not applied to the disposition question.
See also
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/92-14(2).pdf
Original opinion text
Full opinion text unavailable from the official source; see the linked source above for the complete text.
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1992. Ezel checks the current North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace