Ezel / Ethics Opinions / VTBAR

Could a lawyer send a medical-records cover letter requesting more than the enclosed authorization allowed?

Short answer Opinion 2004-2 said a cover letter falsely stating that a limited authorization allowed all listed records misrepresented its scope under Rule 4.1, even when the authorization was attached. The committee did not decide whether the conduct violated Rule 8.4(c).
Bar
VTBAR
Issued
2004
Source
View Original PDF

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2004. 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 2004
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 Not binding precedent.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 sample cover letter told a health care provider that an enclosed authorization allowed release of every record listed in the letter. The workers’ compensation Form 7 authorization actually covered records tied to a particular injury and related treatment, including other records on which the provider relied.

The committee acknowledged that records about earlier or later conditions could be relevant and that broader discovery might be available. Its question was whether the lawyer could claim authority under the enclosed release to obtain records beyond its scope. The committee treated the letter’s claim as a factual statement and found that the inconsistency violated Rule 4.1’s truthfulness requirement. Attaching the actual release did not cure the misleading cover letter.

The committee did not decide whether sending the letter violated Rule 8.4(c), explaining that a finding about deceit required attention to the sender’s state of mind, which it did not determine.

In practice

For the Form 7 example, the committee distinguished a request for potentially relevant additional records from telling a provider that the enclosed limited release itself authorized all those records. It found the latter statement misleading under Rule 4.1.

Common questions

Q: Did attaching the limited authorization cure the cover letter?

A: No. The committee said the false claim about its scope remained a misrepresentation.

Q: Could the additional records still be relevant?

A: Yes. The committee distinguished their possible relevance and availability through discovery from a false claim that the release itself authorized them.

Q: Did the committee find a Rule 8.4(c) violation?

A: No. It declined to determine the sender’s state of mind or decide that issue.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Vermont Rules 3.1 and 4.1, discussed Rule 8.4(c), and quoted the scope of workers’ compensation Form 7 and Workers’ Compensation Rule 3.0800.

Citations and references

Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct:

  • Rules 3.1, 4.1, and 8.4(c).

Workers’ compensation rule:

  • Vermont Workers’ Compensation Rule 3.0800.

Other opinion cited:

  • Vermont Advisory Opinion 89-02.

See also

Source

What do the rules say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 2004. 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