Ezel / Ethics Opinions / SBAND

May a lawyer use settlement releases copied from a co-plaintiff lawyer’s file after inadvertent disclosure?

Short answer The committee said attempting to use the releases in the pending personal injury case did not violate North Dakota conduct rules. It distinguished the inadvertent disclosure of settlement terms from disclosure of confidential attorney-client information.
Bar
SBAND
Issued
December 4, 1995
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1995. Ask about yours and see what the current North Dakota Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.

How much weight this carries: Under North Dakota Rule for Lawyer Discipline 1.2(B), a lawyer who acts in good faith and in reasonable reliance on a written opinion of the association's ethics committee is not subject to sanction for the conduct the opinion addresses. Source.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official ethics opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original ethics opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

A personal injury lawyer reviewed another lawyer’s file with permission and copied settlement releases signed by co-plaintiffs. The releases contained confidentiality clauses. The reviewing lawyer asked whether using them in the pending case would violate ethics rules.

The committee distinguished opinions about unsolicited privileged or confidential attorney-client material. It said the disclosed material here consisted of settlement terms, not confidential attorney-client information. On these facts, it concluded that an attempt to use the releases in the pending case would not violate the North Dakota conduct rules.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Were the releases treated as privileged attorney-client communications?

A: No. The committee described them as settlement details inadvertently disclosed by the other lawyer.

Q: Could the reviewing lawyer attempt to use the releases in the pending case?

A: The committee said doing so would not violate the North Dakota conduct rules on the stated facts.

Background and rules framework

The committee discussed Rule 1.6 and distinguished ABA Formal Opinion 94-382 on unsolicited privileged or confidential attorney-client materials.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • North Dakota Rule 1.6.

Other opinions cited:

  • ABA Formal Opinion 94-382, concerning materials obviously privileged or confidential.

See also

Source

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 1995. 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