Ezel / Ethics Opinions / SBAND

Did the committee consider ordinary unencrypted email for routine client matters a Rule 1.6 violation?

Short answer The committee said routine unencrypted email with clients or jointly representing lawyers did not violate Rule 1.6 as analyzed in 1997, unless unusual circumstances required stronger security.
Bar
SBAND
Issued
September 4, 1997
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 1997. 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

The requester asked about routine client communications over commercial email services and the Internet. The question excluded matters requiring the utmost secrecy.

The committee concluded that ordinary unencrypted email then offered a reasonable expectation of confidentiality for routine matters. It qualified the holding for unusually sensitive communications that could require encryption or other measures. Its technology assessment reflects the 1997 source, not a present-day evaluation.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Was routine unencrypted email always treated as a violation?

A: No. The committee found no Rule 1.6 violation for routine communications on the stated facts.

Q: Did the opinion address unusually sensitive material?

A: Yes. It said additional security measures might be appropriate in unusual circumstances.

Background and rules framework

The opinion discusses North Dakota Rules 1.6 in addressing the stated request.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • North Dakota Rule 1.6.

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 1997. 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