Ezel / Ethics Opinions / VTBAR

May a Vermont lawyer use an outside computer consultant to recover confidential client files?

Short answer Opinion 03-03 permitted the outside contractor for file recovery if the lawyer explained confidentiality duties, assured the contractor understood and accepted them, and verified adequate safeguards. It required client disclosure of a significant breach.
Bar
VTBAR
Issued
2003
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2003. Ask about yours and see what the current Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.

Currency note: this opinion is from 2003
Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later opinions or rule amendments may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.
Disclaimer: Advisory only. Not binding precedent.
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 lawyer wanted outside technical help recovering a lost computer file containing confidential client information. The committee concluded that the contractor's access was permissible to carry out the representation under Rule 1.6, provided the lawyer actively managed the confidentiality risk under Rule 5.3.

The opinion set out three conditions: explain the confidentiality rules to the contractor, ensure the contractor understands and accepts the obligation, and determine that the contractor has adequate safeguards. It said a written acknowledgment could satisfy Rule 5.3's reasonableness requirement. If a significant breach occurred, the conclusion required disclosure to the client; the analysis tied notice to a breach that could affect the client's legal matter.

In practice

For the proposed file recovery, the opinion allows outside assistance while placing responsibility for the contractor's access and safeguards with the lawyer. The committee treated notification of a significant breach as part of the lawyer's communication duties.

Common questions

Q: Did contractor access itself violate client confidentiality?

A: No. The committee allowed access needed for file recovery as part of carrying out the representation, subject to the stated safeguards.

Q: What did the lawyer have to establish before using the contractor?

A: The opinion called for a clear explanation of confidentiality, the contractor's understanding and acceptance of it, and adequate safeguards for the information.

Q: What if the contractor caused a significant breach?

A: The conclusion said the lawyer would need to disclose a significant breach to the client. The analysis referred to Rule 1.4 when the breach could affect the client's matter.

Background and rules framework

The committee applied Vermont Rules 1.6, 5.3, and 1.4. It distinguished its Opinions 91-06 and 98-07, which concerned disclosures outside the purpose of carrying out representation, and cited ABA Formal Opinion 95-398 on nonlawyer service providers.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct 1.6, 5.3, 1.4

Other opinions cited:

  • Vermont Opinions 91-06 and 98-07, disclosures outside the representation
  • ABA Formal Opinion 95-398, confidentiality duties with service providers

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 2003. Ezel checks the current Vermont 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