Adopted | revisions to Rule 4.4, Respect for Rights of Third Persons.
Approved by the Supreme Court of Virginia, effective December 1, 2019.
October 2, 2019
On October 2, 2019, the Supreme Court of Virginia approved revisions to Rule 4.4, effective December 1, 2019.
View the Court's order
(PDF)
June 13, 2019
Council approved by unanimous vote the proposed amendments to Rule 4.4(b) at its June 13, 2019, meeting. The petition for this rule amendment was filed with the Supreme Court of Virginia on June 19, 2019.
View the petition to the Court (pdf)
April 2019
The Standing Committee on Legal Ethics considered this issue at its April 2019 meeting, and concluded that no further changes to the rule were needed. First, the Committee believes that Rule 4.4(b) does not limit a lawyer’s duties under Rule 3.3(d) to report fraud on a tribunal by a third party, once that fraud is clearly established. Second, in any situation where fraud on a tribunal is a concern, the matter would by definition be before a tribunal for purposes of proposed Comment [3], which allows the receiving lawyer to raise the matter to the court for resolution. Finally, the Committee was concerned about the possibility that creating an exception to the rule would create a slippery slope – if lawyers are permitted to review and use information that they believe establishes a fraud on a tribunal, then a lawyer who receives inadvertently disclosed information would be much more likely to review the information hoping to find justification to use the information to her client’s advantage. The proposed changes will be presented to the VSB Council for approval at its June 2019 meeting.
February 23, 2019
At the Virginia State Bar Council meeting on February 23, 2019, a motion was made and seconded to refer the proposed rule changes to Rule of Professional Conduct 4.4(b) to the Standing Committee on Legal Ethics for reconsideration, which motion was passed by affirmation.
December 19, 2018:
At its meeting on December 12, 2018, the Standing Committee on Legal Ethics approved the following proposed rule for presentation to Council at its February 2019 meeting.
Pursuant to Part 6, § IV, ¶ 10-2(C) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Virginia, the Virginia State Bar’s Standing Committee on Legal Ethics (“Committee”) is seeking public comment on proposed amendments to Rule 4.4, Respect for Rights of Third Persons.
The proposed changes to the Rule add paragraph (b), which codifies the guidance currently found in LEO 1702 regarding a lawyer who receives privileged information that was inadvertently sent. Specifically, paragraph (b) requires that a lawyer who receives information relating to the representation of the lawyer’s client and who knows that the information is privileged and was inadvertently sent must immediately terminate review or use of the information, promptly notify the sender, and abide by the sender’s instructions, if applicable, to return or destroy the information.
Proposed Comment 2 further explains the scope of the rule by defining when a document is inadvertently sent and when the lawyer knows or reasonably should know that that is the case. Proposed Comment 2 also clarifies that the rule does not apply to information that was wrongfully obtained rather than inadvertently obtained, and that it only applies to metadata if the metadata is privileged and inadvertently disclosed. Finally, proposed Comment 3 explains that the rule, and LEO 1702, are justified by the extreme importance of preserving lawyer-client confidences, and that the duties established by the proposed rule override the lawyer’s duty of communication under Rule 1.4. Proposed Comment 3 concludes by distinguishing situations involving pre-trial discovery and other situations where rules of court or other law permit the receiving lawyer to contest a sender’s claim of privilege following an inadvertent disclosure; the proposed rule does not prohibit such actions and the recipient is permitted to sequester the inadvertently sent document pending use of such a process.
Inspection and Comment
The proposed rule amendment may also be inspected at the office of the Virginia State Bar, 1111 East Main Street, Suite 700, Richmond, Virginia 23219-0026, between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Copies of the proposed rule amendment can also be obtained from the offices of the Virginia State Bar by contacting the Office of Ethics Counsel at 804-775-0557.
Full proposal below.
--------
Proposed Amendments to Rule 4.4
Rule 4.4 Respect For Rights Of Third Persons
(a) In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.
(b) A lawyer who receives a document or electronically stored information relating to the representation of the lawyer's client and knows or reasonably should know that the document or electronically stored information is privileged and was inadvertently sent shall immediately terminate review or use of the document or electronically stored information, promptly notify the sender, and abide by the sender’s instructions to return or destroy the document or electronically stored information.
Comments
[1] Responsibility to a client requires a lawyer to subordinate the interests of others to those of the client, but that responsibility does not imply that a lawyer may disregard the rights of third persons. It is impractical to catalogue all such rights, but they include legal restrictions on methods of obtaining evidence from third persons and unwarranted intrusions into privileged relationships, such as the client-lawyer relationship.
[2] Paragraph (b) recognizes that lawyers sometimes receive a document or electronically stored information that was mistakenly sent or produced by opposing parties or their lawyers. A document or electronically stored information is inadvertently sent when it is accidentally transmitted, such as when an email or letter is misaddressed or a document or electronically stored information is accidentally included with information that was intentionally transmitted. If a lawyer knows or reasonably should know that such a document or electronically stored information was sent inadvertently and is privileged, then this Rule requires the lawyer to promptly notify the sender in order to permit that person to take protective measures and to abide by any instructions to return or destroy the document or information that was inadvertently sent. Regardless of whether it is obvious that the document or electronically stored information was inadvertently sent, the receiving lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the document or information was inadvertently sent if the sender promptly notifies the receiving lawyer of the mistake. If the receiving lawyer lacks actual or constructive knowledge that the document or electronically stored information was inadvertently sent, then paragraph (b) does not apply. Similarly, the lawyer may know that the document or electronically stored information was inadvertently sent but not that it is privileged; in that case, the receiving lawyer has no duty under this rule.
This Rule does not address the legal duties of a lawyer who receives a document or electronically stored information that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know may have been inappropriately obtained by the sending person. For purposes of this Rule, ‘‘document or electronically stored information’’ includes, in addition to paper documents, email and other forms of electronically stored information, including embedded data (commonly referred to as “metadata”), that is subject to being read or put into readable form. Metadata in electronic documents creates an obligation under this Rule only if the receiving lawyer knows or reasonably should know that the metadata was inadvertently sent to the receiving lawyer and that it contains privileged information.
[3] Preservation of lawyer-client confidences is such a vital aspect of the legal system that it is appropriate to require that lawyers not take advantage of a mistake or inadvertent disclosure by opposing counsel to gain an undue advantage. See LEO 1702. This means that the lawyer is prohibited from informing the lawyer’s client of relevant, though inadvertently disclosed, information, and that the lawyer is prevented from using information that is of great significance to the client’s case. In such cases, paragraph (b) overrides the lawyer’s communication duty under Rule 1.4. As stated in Comment 1, diligent representation of the client’s interests does not authorize or warrant intrusions into privileged communications.
Where applicable discovery rules, agreements, or other law permit the recipient to contest the sender’s claim of privilege, use of such a process does not constitute “use” as prohibited by this rule, and the recipient may sequester the document or information pending resolution of that process. When there is no such applicable law, such as in a matter that does not involve litigation, the recipient lawyer must abide by the sender’s instructions to return or destroy the document. See also LEO 1871.