Opinion #766 –
09/10/2003
|
Topic: Disposition of
files of former client
|
Overrules: N.Y. State 398
(1975)
|
Digest: Former
client and/or successor counsel is presumptively entitled to access all
attorney files.
|
|
Code: DR 2-106(A); DR
9-102(C)
|
QUESTION
What is a lawyer’s obligation to a former client who
requests the files that were generated in the course of the prior
representation?
OPINION
DR 9-102(C) provides:
A lawyer shall:
* * *
(4) Promptly pay or deliver to the
client . . . as requested by the client . . . the funds, securities, or
other properties in the possession of the lawyer which the client . . .
is entitled to receive.
The question of which “funds, securities, or other
properties in the possession of the lawyer” the client (or
successor counsel) is entitled to receive is generally a question of
law, not ethics. See N.Y. State 623
(1991) (“Which documents may be deemed to belong to the lawyer
is not always easy to ascertain; in certain instances, the
lawyer’s ownership of such documents may be a complex issue of
both law and fact.”); Nassau Bar Op.
94-19 (funds in IOLA account); Nassau Bar Op. 96-13 (funds
in escrow account). The duty to deliver
“to the client all papers and property to which the client is
entitled” is also a requirement of withdrawal from
employment. See DR
2-110(A)(2).
Accordingly, the Bar’s attention is directed
to Sage Realty Corp. v. Proskauer Rose Goetz &
Mendelsohn, 91 N.Y.2d 30 (1997), in which the
Court of Appeals abandoned the distinction “between documents
representing the ‘end product’ of an attorney’s
services, which belong to the client, and the attorney’s
‘work product’ leading to the creation of those end product
documents, which remains the property of the attorney,” opting
instead for the “majority” view wherein, “upon
termination of the attorney-client relationship, where no claim for
unpaid legal fees is outstanding,”[1] the
client is “presumptively accord[ed] . . . full access to the
attorney’s file on a represented matter with narrow
exceptions.” 91 N.Y.2d at 34
(citations omitted). The Court cited
the final draft[2] of the American Law Institute Restatement (Third) of the Law
Governing Lawyers § 58 (proposed final draft No. 1, 1996), as
follows:
The draft Restatement provides that a former client is
to be accorded access to “inspect and copy any documents
possessed by the
lawyer relating to the
representation, unless substantial
grounds exist to refuse” (id., § 58[2]) [emphasis supplied]. Even without a request, an
attorney is obligated to deliver to the client, not later than promptly
after representation ends, “such originals and copies of other
documents possessed by the lawyer relating to the representation as the
. . . [former] client reasonably
needs” (id., § 58[3], comment
d).
91 N.Y.2d at 35.
The Committee recognizes that, consistent with the now rejected
“minority view,” N.Y. State 398 (1975) suggested that
“the client is not entitled to require delivery of the
firm’s work product” unless, in the context of the
particular circumstances, the “firm’s duty” to the
former client or the “professional courtesy” to be accorded
to successor counsel, “are necessary” to guard the
client’s interest” (citations
omitted). To the extent that N.Y. State
398 thus reflects a presumption of non-accessibility that a former
client must overcome with respect to a certain class of documents, that
view has been plainly rejected by the Court of Appeals
in Sage Realty and is no longer
valid. See
also Gamiel v. Sullivan
& Liapakis, P.C., 289 A.D.2d 88
(2001); Getman v. Petro & Ingalsbe, 266 A.D.2d
688 (1999).
With regard to who bears the cost of file assembly and
delivery, we also note the Court of Appeals statement
in Sage Realty that “as a general
proposition, unless a law firm has already been paid for assemblage and
delivery of documents to the client, performing that function is
properly chargeable to the client under customary fee schedules of the
firm, or pursuant to the terms of any governing retainer
agreement.” 91 N.Y.2d at 38. Of course,
the fee for such services may not be excessive. DR 2-106(A). See also Deane v. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom, N.Y.L.J., Aug. 17, 1998 (Sup. Ct. N.Y.
County).
CONCLUSION
As a matter of ethics, upon request by a former client, a
lawyer must promptly turn over or provide access to the files which the
former client is entitled to possess. As a matter of New York law, a former client is entitled to any
document related to the representation unless substantial grounds exist
to refuse access. The lawyer may charge
such former client reasonable fees for assembling and delivering such
files, as reflected by customary fee schedules or any governing retainer
agreement.
(35-02)