道德意见350

Whether a Lawyer is Obliged to Surrender to a Former Client Work-Product Procured Through the Former Client’s Factual Misrepresentations

澳博app根据前客户所作的虚假事实陈述起草了一份陈述书和宣誓书，根据规则1没有义务.16(d)将这些文件交给客户. 规则1.2 prevents a lawyer from assisting a client in conduct that the lawyer 知道 is fraudulent. Such conduct includes assisting a client in drafting or delivering documents that the lawyer 知道 are fraudulent. 澳博app可以:(1)在实际可行且有效的情况下, redact all portions of the documents containing misrepresentations 和 surrender to the client only the redacted documents; (2) if redaction is impractical or ineffective, refuse to produce the entire document to the client; 或(3)如果客户同意或规则1.6(d)适用, 将未修改的文件移交给前客户的继任澳博app，并充分披露文件中包含的欺诈行为。. 澳博app还应写信给客户，要求立即销毁或退还所有包含虚假陈述的文件草稿，并指示客户不要向法院提交此类文件.

适用的规则

• 1.0(f)(术语的定义)
• 1.2(e)(协助客户的不法行为)
• 1.6 (d)(保密)
• 1.16(d)(终止代理)
• 3.3(a)(向审裁处坦白)

调查

After drafting a brief 和 affidavit which included various material factual representations asserted by the client, 一名澳博app发现那些陈述是虚假的, 拒绝向法院提交此类欺诈性文件, 澳博app退出了代理. The former client now dem和s that the lawyer surrender these documents, 但澳博app有理由相信, 虽然不是真正的知识, that the former client intends to file the brief 和 affidavit in going forward with the case. The client did not owe the lawyer any outst和ing legal fees at the time the lawyer terminated the representation.

讨论

根据规则1.16(d):

与任何代理终止有关, a lawyer shall take timely steps to the extent reasonably practicable to protect a client's interests, 比如交出文件和财产 客户有权得到的. . . .¹

The 法律道德 Committee has consistently determined that under the District of Columbia 职业行为准则, the entire file belongs to the client 和 must be surrendered to the client upon termination of the representation, unless the client has agreed otherwise or unless the lawyer is permitted by 规则1.(i)保留未支付的澳博app工作成果.² 在此介绍委员会的情况, 然而, 一个狭隘的问题是前客户是否有权获得包含欺诈性虚假陈述或遗漏的澳博app工作成果. 我们的结论是他不是.

The lawyer’s duty to remove misrepresentations before surrendering the documents arises under 规则1.2(e), which prohibits the lawyer from assisting a client “in conduct that the lawyer 知道 is criminal or fraudulent.特别有启发性的是评论[7], which provides that “the lawyer is required to avoid assisting the client, 例如, by drafting or delivering documents that the lawyer 知道 are fraudulent.”

另外，规则3.第3(a)(1)条禁止澳博app故意 mak[ing] a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal…;” Rule 3.第3(a)(2)条禁止澳博app“明知 . . . 协助[委托人]从事澳博app所不能从事的行为 知道 is criminal or fraudulent …” (emphasis added); 和 Rule 3.3(a)(4) prohibits a lawyer from “offer[ing] evidence that the lawyer 知道 to be false.“我们得出的结论是，一位澳博app如果知道前客户的陈述是虚假的，并且有充分的理由相信前客户(无论是通过另一位澳博app或澳博app) 箴se) intends to file the brief 和 affidavit containing such misrepresentations would violate Rule 3.将该等文件交给前客户.³

而 than decline to produce the entire document to the former client, the lawyer may, 在可行和有效的情况下, 选择修改他所知道的所有事实虚假陈述——以及所有依赖或包含这些虚假陈述的法律分析和讨论——并且只交出这些修改过的宣誓书和摘要. An effective redaction is where the lawyer excises sufficient material, 必要时包括上下文, 这样，客户就不能简单地重新插入欺诈事实或虚假陈述，并提交与原始欺诈形式基本相同的摘要.⁴

即使澳博app尽了最大的努力，要么保留了整个文件，要么只向客户交出了经过仔细修改的版本, there nonetheless remains the potential for the former client to use the lawyer’s past services to perpetrate a fraud upon the tribunal. 出于这个原因, 澳博app还应致函前客户，要求前客户立即销毁或退还所有先前包含或使用虚假陈述的文件草稿，并指示客户不要提交摘要和宣誓书, 或其较早的草稿.⁵

如果前客户试图通过将以欺诈手段获得的文件归档或将文件转交给继任澳博app以代表客户使用的方式对仲裁庭实施欺诈, 和 if substantial injury to another’s financial interests or property are reasonably certain to result from the former client’s fraud, 然后规则1.6(d) permits the original lawyer to make disclosure of the fraud to successor counsel or the tribunal, 不管客户是否同意. 具体来说，规则1.6 (d)提供:

When a client has used or is using a lawyer’s services to further a crime or fraud, 澳博app可以泄露委托人的秘密, 在合理必要的范围内:

1. 为了防止 the client from committing the crime or fraud if it is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another; or

2. 为了防止, 减轻, 或纠正对他人的经济利益或财产造成的实质性损害，这种损害是合理确定的，或已经由客户的犯罪或欺诈造成的.

像这样, 允许披露, 而不是强制性的, 在有理由确定前客户的欺诈行为会对第三方的经济利益或财产造成实质性损害的情况下, 和 any disclosure under this rule must be limited to that which is reasonably necessary 为了防止, 减轻, 或者纠正实质性伤害. Alternatively, counsel may disclose the fraud to successor counsel, without concern for 1.6(d)’s limiting factor of reasonably certain substantial injury, 如果澳博app得到前委托人的同意.

结论

规则1.第16(d)条并不要求澳博app向前客户交出通过客户虚假陈述事实而欺诈获得的陈述书和宣誓书. 而, 澳博app应当(1)切实可行且有效的, 编辑文件中包含事实和法律虚假陈述的部分，只将文件中不包含虚假陈述的部分交给前客户, (2)不可行或无效的, 保留全部文件, 或(3)如果客户同意或规则1.6(d)适用, 将未修改的文件移交给前客户的继任澳博app，并充分披露文件中包含的欺诈行为。.

出版日期:2009年10月

1. 重点补充道.
2. See 法律道德 Opinion 250 (Duty to Turn Over Files of Former Client to New Lawyer When Unpaid 费用 are Outst和ing.); 法律道德 Opinions 286 (Former Client Files) 和 法律道德 Opinion 333 (Surrendering Entire Client File Upon Termination Of Representation). 规则1.16(d)参考规则1.8(i), 哪条法律允许澳博app——在非常有限的情况下——在客户未能支付报酬的情况下，在代理终止后保留他或她的工作成果. 在这种情况下, 然而, there were no outst和ing legal fees owed by the client to the lawyer at the time the lawyer terminated the representation.
3. We recognize that having “good reason to believe” a fact is different from having actual knowledge of it. 见规则1.0(f) (defines “故意” 和 “知道” as “actual knowledge of the fact in question,“哪一个”可以从具体情况推断出来.”),, 在即时情况下, the lawyer lacks actual knowledge that the former client intends to use the work product in question, the lawyer does have actual knowledge that the client fraudulently procured the lawyer’s work product. 在这种情况下, 澳博app对其委托人欺诈行为的实际了解, taken together with his reasonable belief that the client intends to file the documents, requires that the lawyer refuse to surrender the unredacted documents to the client.
4. 这是可以促进的, 例如, 通过“剪切和粘贴”文件来删除虚假陈述或通过虚假陈述用不可磨灭的墨水画线. The lawyer should also indicate in the redacted document in some clear fashion that the redactions are being made 为了防止 fraud. 委员会认识到，将客户有权获得的文件部分与基于被发现具有欺诈性的信息的部分区分开来是必要的, may not always be easy 和 requires some amount of professional discretion. 可以说, delivering remaining portions of documents that appear to be truthful, 但后来被证明也包含虚假陈述可能会带来一些风险，即澳博app可能会被认为对他“应该知道”的虚假信息负责. 然而, we think such a st和ard is too broad 和 does not have a basis in the language of the rules. Whether redaction of a document is effective rests in the good faith judgment of the lawyer.
5. Were the lawyer to discover that the client filed an earlier draft of the fraudulent documents, 澳博app可能会揭露客户的虚假陈述，“以防止客户实施犯罪或欺诈，如果有理由肯定会对他人的经济利益或财产造成重大损害”或“防止”, 减轻或纠正对他人的经济利益或财产造成的实质性损害，这种损害是合理确定的，或已经由客户的犯罪或欺诈造成的.见规则1.6(d). A lawyer’s duty to take prompt remedial measures pursuant to Rule 3.3(d)纠正对仲裁庭实施的欺诈行为的义务在此不适用，因为澳博app的补救义务以其退出代理而终止. 见规则3的注释[12].3.