If a lawyer distributes a computer program that generates legal documents for other lawyers to use, what ethics duties apply?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry came from a lawyer who intended to make a computer program available to other lawyers so they could extract forms for their use. The committee said it was unable to render a general opinion because of the limited information available, but it raised several points.

The committee was of the opinion that the assumptions and programming restrictions material to document use, and the program's limitations, should be provided in each instance to the user-attorney. It added that, although this might relate more to the author's effort to minimize malpractice exposure, the user-attorney must be advised that the user's own responsibilities under the Rules of Professional Conduct are not shifted to the program's author. The committee also expressed a confidentiality concern under RPC 1.6, noting that the computer system's availability raised the possibility of access to confidential information by third parties. It suggested that specific questions be submitted if the inquirer wanted the committee's opinion on them.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1987, before the Washington State Bar Association's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Does distributing a legal-forms program shift the user-lawyer's ethics duties to the program's author?

A: No. The committee said the user-attorney must be advised that the user's responsibilities under the Rules of Professional Conduct are not shifted to the program's author.

Q: What did the committee say about confidentiality?

A: It raised a concern under RPC 1.6 that the computer system's availability could allow third parties to access confidential information.

Q: Did the committee approve the program?

A: No. It declined to render a general opinion because of limited information, and suggested the inquirer submit specific questions for an opinion.

Background and rules framework

The opinion touched on RPC 1.6 (confidentiality of information, corresponding to ABA Model Rule 1.6) in flagging the risk of third-party access to confidential information through the program. The committee otherwise declined to opine generally, framing the disclosure of the program's assumptions and limitations as the author's concern and the user-attorney's continuing professional responsibilities as unaffected by the program.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality of information); Washington RPC 1.6

See also

• WSBA Ethics Op. 1848: Outside IT Access to Client Data
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1607: Confidentiality and Fax Machines
• WSBA Ethics Op. 1822: Caller ID and Confidentiality

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1135

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

Advisory Opinion: 1093
Year Issued: 1987
RPC(s): RPC 1.6
Subject: Lawyer intends to distribute computer program for preparation of legal documents

While the Committee was unable to render a general opinion regarding your plans for a computer program because of limited information available to the Committee, there were some matters which the Committee did want to call to your attention. The Committee understands that it is your intention, eventually, to have your computer program available to lawyers to extract forms for their use. The Committee was of the opinion that the assumptions and programming restrictions material to document use and limitations should be provided in each instance to the user attorney. While this may relate more to your efforts to minimize your malpractice exposure, the lawyer/user must be advised that his/her responsibilities under the Rules of Professional Conduct are not shifted to you.

The Committee also had a concern regarding confidentiality under RPC 1.6. The Committee was concerned that the computer system availability may have the possibility of access to confidential information by third parties.

The Committee suggested that if you have specific questions, you should submit them to the Committee if you wish their opinion.