When a client discharges a lawyer, must the lawyer return original documents even if a copy was provided?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry concerned an attorney's duty to return the client's file after the client retained another attorney. The first question was whether an attorney complies with RPC 1.15(d) when no lawsuit has been filed and the attorney has given the client a complete copy of the file. The committee said that under RPC 1.15(d), an attorney cannot keep originals belonging to the client if that operates to the disadvantage and detriment of the client.

The committee said the further question, whether an attorney's lien is valid and enforceable, cannot be answered by the RPC Committee, because it is a question of law rather than a question of legal ethics within the Rules of Professional Conduct. The committee referred the inquirer to Formal Opinion 181 and to Ross v. Scannell, 97 Wn. 2d 598, 647 P.2d 1004 (1982).

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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. Washington's then-current RPC 1.15(d) (return of client property on termination) corresponds to ABA Model Rule 1.16(d).

Common questions

Q: Does giving the client a complete copy satisfy the duty to return the file?

A: The committee said that under RPC 1.15(d) an attorney cannot keep originals belonging to the client if doing so operates to the client's disadvantage and detriment, regardless of having provided a copy.

Q: Can a lawyer hold originals under an attorney's lien?

A: The committee said whether an attorney's lien is valid and enforceable is a question of law it cannot answer, and referred the inquirer to Formal Opinion 181 and Ross v. Scannell.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied RPC 1.15(d) (return of client property when the representation ends, corresponding to ABA Model Rule 1.16(d)) to the retention of original documents after discharge. The committee drew the ethics line at retention that disadvantages the client, while treating the enforceability of any attorney's lien as a legal question outside the Rules, pointing to Formal Opinion 181 and the Ross v. Scannell decision.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• ABA Model Rule 1.16 (declining or terminating representation; return of property); Washington RPC 1.15(d)

Cases:

• Ross v. Scannell, 97 Wn. 2d 598, 647 P.2d 1004 (Wash. 1982), attorney's lien

Other opinions cited:

• WSBA Formal Opinion 181: delivery of the client file and allocation of copying costs

See also

• WA Ethics Op. 1697: Class Member's Copy of the File
• WA Ethics Op. 1683: Trust Funds for a Foreign Client

Source

• Landing page: https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=776

Original opinion text

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

Advisory Opinion: 1702
Year Issued: 1997
RPC(s): RPC 1.15(d)
Subject: Client property; duty to return original documents when discharged

The inquiry concerned an attorney's duty to return the client's file after the client retained another attorney. Your first question was whether an attorney has complied with RPC 1.15(d) when no lawsuit has yet been filed, and the attorney has given the client a complete copy of the client's file. Under RPC 1.15(d), an attorney cannot keep originals belonging to the client if that operates to the disadvantage and to the detriment of the client. Your question of whether an attorney's lien is valid and enforceable cannot be answered by the RPC Committee. It is a question of law rather than a question of legal ethics within the Rules of Professional Conduct. The Committee refers you to Formal Opinion 181 (enclosed) and Ross v. Scannell, 97 Wn. 2d 598, 647 P.2d 1004 (1982).