{"id":"court_ctb_939_1","court":"CTB","case_no":"22-50073","doc_number":939,"sub_number":1,"doc_type":"ORDER","filed_date":null,"title":"EXHIBIT A","summary_zh":null,"summary_en":null,"body_en":"# **EXHIBIT**\n\n**A**\n\n## AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION\n\nSTANDING COMMITTEE ON ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY\n\n### **Formal Opinion 473 February 17, 2016**\n\n### **Obligations Upon Receiving a Subpoena or Other Compulsory Process for Client Documents or Information**\n\n*A lawyer receiving a subpoena or other compulsory process for documents or information relating to the representation of a client has several obligations. If the client is available, the lawyer must consult the client. If instructed by the client or if the client is unavailable, the lawyer must assert all reasonable claims against disclosure and seek to limit the subpoena or other initial demand on any reasonable ground. If ordered to disclose confidential or privileged information and the client is available, a lawyer must consult with the client about whether to produce the information or appeal. If the client and the lawyer disagree about how to respond to the initial demand or to an order requiring disclosure, the lawyer should consider withdrawing from the representation pursuant to Model Rule 1.16. If disclosure is ordered and the client is unavailable for consultation, the lawyer is not ethically required to appeal. When disclosing documents and information whether in response to an initial demand or to an order, and whether or not the client is available—the lawyer may reveal information only to the extent reasonably necessary. The lawyer should seek appropriate protective orders or other protective arrangements so that access to the information is limited to the court or other tribunal ordering its disclosure and to persons having a need to know.*\n\n#### **I. Introduction**\n\nRecently the Committee was asked to revisit Formal Opinion 94-385 (July 5, 1994) regarding subpoena of a lawyer's files because Model Rule 1.6(b)(6) was adopted in 2002, more than a decade ago (at that time as 1.6(b)(4)). Model Rule 1.6(b)(6) provides: \"A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to comply with *other law or court order*.\"<sup>1</sup>\n\nWhen Formal Opinion 94-385 was issued, Model Rule 1.6(b) permitted a lawyer to disclose confidential information *in only two circumstances*: (i) to prevent certain crimes,\n\n<sup>1.</sup> ABA MODEL RULE 1.6(b)(6) (2015) (emphasis added). The phrase \"other law\" refers, generally, to statutory or regulatory requirements. *See, e.g.*, State Bar of Michigan Advisory Op. RI-311 (1999) (regulation requiring lawyer to report the names and addresses of clients to the Legal Services Corporation); State Bar of Michigan Advisory Op. RI-54 (1990) (Internal Revenue Code requirement that cash transactions exceeding \\$10,000.00 be reported to the Internal Revenue Service). Although there is overlap in the two phrases, this opinion addresses principally the obligations of a lawyer who receives a subpoena or other initial demand that is or may be enforced by a court or other tribunal. Throughout this opinion, \"subpoena,\" \"demand,\" \"compulsory process,\" and similar terms are used interchangeably to refer to any initial demand by an entity or person or government agency seeking information protected by Model Rule 1.6(a) that is or may be enforced by compulsory process. \"Court\" or \"tribunal\" refers to a court, an arbitrator in a binding arbitration proceeding or a legislative body, and an administrative agency or other body acting in an adjudicative capacity and includes any other \"tribunal\" within the meaning of Model Rule 1.0(m).\n\nand (ii) to establish certain claims or defenses on behalf of the lawyer.<sup>2</sup> Relying in part on then Comment [20], Formal Opinion 94-385 advised that the lawyer \"must comply with the final orders of a court or other tribunal of competent jurisdiction requiring the lawyer to give information about a client.\" 3 The Opinion explained that this \"does not mean that the lawyer should be a passive bystander to attempts by a governmental agency—or by any other person or entity for that matter—to examine her files or records.\"<sup>4</sup> Rather,\n\n[W]here a government agency serves on the lawyer a subpoena or court order directing the lawyer to turn over to the agency the lawyer's files relating to her representation of the client—the lawyer has a professional responsibility to seek to limit the subpoena, or court order, on any legitimate available ground (such as the attorney-client privilege, work product immunity, relevance or burden), so as to protect documents as to which the lawyer's obligation under Rule 1.6 apply. Only if the lawyer's efforts [at limiting the subpoena or order] are unsuccessful, either in the trial court or in the appellate court (in those jurisdictions where an interlocutory appeal on this issue is permitted), and she is specifically ordered by the court to turn over to the governmental agency documents which, in the lawyer's opinion, are privileged, may the lawyer do so.<sup>5</sup>\n\nIn the twenty-one years since publication of Formal Opinion 94-385 and the fourteen years since the Ethics 2000 amendments, additional questions have arisen regarding how a lawyer should respond to subpoenas, demands, or other compulsory process for client information and documents. These questions include: If disclosure is to be made, how extensive should it be? What, if any, protective measures should or must the lawyer seek? Are the obligations different when the client is not available for consultation? When the client is available for consultation but responding to the demand is outside the scope of a current representation, how should the lawyer handle retention and fee arrangements? If the client and the lawyer disagree about how to respond—either to the initial demand or after disclosure is ordered—what are the lawyer's obligations? Must the lawyer appeal an adverse decision for a client who is unavailable? Should or may the lawyer provide for these contingencies in retainer letters? This opinion provides guidance on these and related questions. The advice offered here updates and extends the advice offered in Formal Opinion 94-385.\n\n#### **II. Discussion**\n\nRule 1.6(b) permits but does not require a lawyer to disclose information relating to the representation of a client (\"[a] lawyer may reveal information\") that the lawyer would\n\n<sup>2.</sup> *Compare* ABA MODEL RULE 1.6(b) (1994), *with* ABA MODEL RULE 1.6(b) (2015).\n\n<sup>3.</sup> ABA Comm. on Ethics & Prof'l Responsibility, Formal Op. 94-385 (1994), at 2.\n\n<sup>4.</sup> *Id*.\n\n<sup>5.</sup> *Id.* at 3 (footnotes omitted).\n\notherwise be barred from disclosure under Rule 1.6(a). <sup>6</sup> Each of the seven 1.6(b) provisions specifies an exception to the 1.6(a) prohibition, and under each provision disclosure is permitted.<sup>7</sup>\n\nFor example, Rule 1.6(b)(6) makes clear that a lawyer cannot argue 1.6(a) bars compliance with a court order. Rule 1.6(a) permits disclosure of information relating to the representation, \"if such disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b),\" and subparagraph (b)(6) permits the lawyer to disclose information \"to comply with other law or court order.\" A lawyer must obey a court order, subject to any right to move the court to withdraw or modify the order or to appeal the order.<sup>8</sup> But a lawyer facing a court order requiring the disclosure of client confidential information still is faced with complex, critical and factintensive questions on how to respond—e.g., what challenges should be considered, what specific information should be disclosed, and what protective measures should be sought. In making these judgments the lawyer must balance obligations inherent in the lawyer's dual role as an advocate for the client and an officer of the court. 9 In doing so, the lawyer should disclose client confidential information only to the extent \"the lawyer reasonably believes necessary\" to comply with the order.<sup>10</sup> Provision (b)(6) enables—indeed calls upon—the lawyer to make these delicate judgments.\n\n#### **A. Notice and Consultation**\n\nThe lawyer's obligations of notice and consultation upon receiving a demand for client files and information are essentially the same for current and former clients. First,\n\n<sup>6.</sup> ABA MODEL RULE 1.6(a) (2015) provides: \"A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b).\"\n\n<sup>7.</sup> *See, e.g.*, ABA MODEL RULE 1.6(b)(1) (2015) (a lawyer *may* reveal confidential information \"to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm\") (emphasis added); ABA MODEL RULE 1.6(b)(2) (2015) (a lawyer *may* reveal confidential information \"to prevent the client from committing a crime or fraud that is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another and in furtherance of which the client has used or is using the lawyer's services\") (emphasis added). ABA MODEL RULE 1.6(b)(6) is, by its terms, and consistent with (b)(1) through (b)(5), also permissive. *See* ABA MODEL RULE 1.6(b)(6) (2015) (\"[a] lawyer *may* reveal information . . . to comply with . . . a court order\") (emphasis added). *See also* A LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ABA MODEL RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT, 1982-2013 130 (Art Garwin ed., 2013); Margaret Love, *The Revised ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct: Summary of the Work of Ethics 2000*, 15 GEO. J. LEGAL ETHICS 441, 451 (2002).\n\n<sup>8.</sup> *See, e.g.*, ABA MODEL RULE 3.4(c) (2015) (\"A lawyer shall not . . . knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal\"); ABA MODEL RULE 8.4(d) (2015) (\"It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice\"); ABA MODEL RULE 8.4(a) (2015) (\"It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to . . . violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct\"). *See also* RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW GOVERNING LAWYERS (3d) § 105 (2000) (\"In representing a client in a matter before a tribunal, a lawyer must comply with applicable law, including rules of procedure and evidence and specific tribunal rulings.\").\n\n<sup>9.</sup> *See* Dike v. Dike, 448 P.2d 490, 493 (Wash. 1968) (discussing whether a lawyer should be ordered to disclose confidential information the court said, \"[I]t is important to recognize that an attorney has a dual role [in this context] — he is both an advocate for his client and an officer of the court . . . . Neither duty can be meaningfully considered independent from the other.\").\n\n<sup>10.</sup> ABA MODEL RULE 1.6 cmt. [16] (2015).\n\nthe lawyer must notify—or attempt to notify—the client. 11 For former clients, the lawyer must make reasonable efforts to reach the client by, for example, internet search, phone call, fax, email or other electronic communications, and letter to the client's last known address. The specific efforts required to reach particular clients will depend on the circumstances existing when the lawyer receives the demand. But these efforts must be reasonable within the meaning of Model Rule 1.0(h), and should be documented in the lawyer's files.\n\nThe lawyer's obligations to the client will differ depending on whether the client is available for consultation. Where the client is available, the lawyer must consult the client about how to respond to the demand. <sup>12</sup> Model Rule 1.4 should guide this consultation.\n\nRule 1.4 directs the lawyer to \"promptly inform the client of any decision or circumstance with respect to which the client's informed consent\" is required and to \"explain [the] matter to the extent reasonably necessary to permit the client to make informed decisions.\"<sup>13</sup> Rule 1.6(a) allows the lawyer to disclose information relating to the representation with the client's informed consent. <sup>14</sup> \"'Informed consent' denotes the agreement by a person to a proposed course of conduct after the lawyer has communicated\n\n13. ABA MODEL RULE 1.4 (2015).\n\n14. *See* ABA MODEL RULE 1.6(a) (2015) (prohibiting a lawyer from revealing confidential information unless the client gives \"informed consent\").\n\n<sup>11.</sup> *See, e.g.*, State Bar of Michigan Advisory Op. CI-925 (1983) (lawyer must notify client upon receipt of a subpoena for documents relating to the lawyer's representation of the client) (citations omitted); Alaska Bar Ass'n Op. 96-3 (1996) (upon receiving a demand for confidential information or documents, the lawyer should attempt to contact the client concerning the request). *See also* Linda G. Bauer, *Subpoena Savvy: What To Do When Your Client's File is Subpoenaed* (Nov. 2002), [www.mass.gov/obcbbo/subpoena.htm](htt) (\". . . [T]he lawyer should first attempt to contact the former client to determine whether the client consents to the disclosure.\"); D.C. Bar Op. 14 (1976), at 2 (\"an attorney should promptly notify his former client when he receives a subpoena asking for documents that came into his possession during the course of the representation of that former client or documents that affect or may affect that former client\"); Pennsylvania Legal Ethics & Prof'l Responsibility Comm. Op. 2002-106 (2003) (\"a lawyer may comply with an order issued in a private arbitration to reveal confidential client information, but must first raise the confidentiality issue with the arbitration panel and notify any clients whose confidences are implicated. The lawyer should try to limit the scope and impact of the disclosure.\").\n\n<sup>12.</sup> *See* ABA MODEL RULE 1.6 cmt. [15] (2015) (client consultation is required by Rule 1.4 before responding to an order or demand for information relating to a representation by \"a court or by another tribunal or governmental entity\"). The protection of 1.6 is provided to former clients through Model Rule 1.9(c)(1) and (2), which provide: \"A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter or whose present or former firm has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter: (1) use information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the former client except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client . . . or (2) reveal information relating to the representation except as these Rules would permit or require with respect to a client.\" *See also* Swidler & Berlin v. U.S., 524 U.S. 399 (1998) (obligations of confidentiality continue even after the death of a client); Jamaica Pub. Serv. Co. v AIU Ins. Co., 684 N.Y.S.2d 459, 462 (N.Y. 1998) (an attorney owes a \"continuing duty\" to a former client not to reveal confidences learned in the course of a professional relationship). *See also* ABA Comm. on Ethics & Prof'l Responsibility, Formal Op. 10-456 fn8 (\"[t]he lawyer's obligation to protect the attorney-client privilege ordinarily applies when the lawyer is called to testify or provide documents regarding a former client no less than a current client\"); Rhode Island Supreme Ct. Ethics Advisory Panel Op. 2013-05, at 3 (2013) (obligations under 1.6 continue even after death of client; even then a \"lawyer has a professional responsibility to seek to limit [a] subpoena or court order on any legitimate grounds such as attorney-client privilege, work product immunity, burden or relevance, to protect information to which obligations under Rule 1.6 apply\") (citing ABA Formal Opinion 94-385).\n\nadequate information and explanation about the material risks of and reasonably available alternatives to the proposed course of conduct.\"<sup>15</sup>\n\nThe content of the consultation will depend on the circumstances. It should include, at a minimum, (i) a description of the protections afforded by Rule 1.6(a) and (b), (ii) whether and to what extent the attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine or other protections or immunities apply, and (iii) any other relevant matter. Other relevant matters include, for example, \"to the extent that the disclosure of confidential client information in a civil proceeding may raise potential criminal liability for the client, the consequences should be explained to the client during the consultation process.\"<sup>16</sup> The lawyer also may need to discuss whether the subpoena or other demand is valid and whether the requested document contains self-incriminatory information that might form the basis of a Fifth Amendment privilege claim against disclosure.\n\nIf, after consultation, the client wishes to challenge the demand, the lawyer should, as appropriate and consistent with the client's instructions, challenge the demand on any reasonable ground. If, after making the challenge, the court or other tribunal rules against the motion to withdraw or modify the order or demand for production, \"the lawyer must consult with the client about the possibility of appeal to the extent required by Rule 1.4.\" 17 If the client decides not to appeal and gives informed consent to disclosure, the lawyer must produce the documents and information consistent with the client's instructions and as described in Part IIC of this opinion*.*\n\nThe lawyer has several options and some obligations if the lawyer and client disagree about how to respond to the initial demand or to an adverse ruling, or if the client wishes to retain new counsel. For a current client, where the initial demand or the appeal is within the scope of the retention, for example, the lawyer may seek to withdraw in compliance with Model Rule 1.16.<sup>18</sup> Where the initial demand or the appeal constitutes a new matter for a current client or relates to a former client and the client wishes to seek other counsel, the lawyer should take reasonable steps to protect the client's interest during the client's search for other counsel. 19\n\n#### **B. Fee Arrangements**\n\nWhen responding to a demand that is outside the scope of a current retention, or when the demand relates to information and documents of a former client, the lawyer may need to discuss fee and retention arrangements during the consultation. In doing so, however, the lawyer must comply with the relevant rules. For example, under Model Rule 1.5(b) \"[t]he scope of the representation and the basis or rate of the fee and expenses for which the client will be responsible shall be communicated to the client, preferably in\n\n<sup>15.</sup> ABA MODEL RULE 1.0(e) (2015).\n\n<sup>16.</sup> *See* Bauer, *supra* note 11.\n\n<sup>17.</sup> ABA MODEL RULE 1.6 cmt. [15] (2015).\n\n<sup>18.</sup> *See* ABA MODEL RULE 1.16(b)(1), (4), (7) & 1.16(c) (2015).\n\n<sup>19.</sup> *See* ABA MODEL RULE 1.16(d) (2015).\n\nwriting, before or within a reasonable time after commencing the representation, except when the lawyer will charge a regularly represented client on the same basis or rate.\"<sup>20</sup>\n\nLawyers also may consider providing for these situations in initial retainer letters by including provisions that (i) the client will keep the lawyer informed on how to reach the client, even after the representation has ended, (ii) in the event the lawyer receives a subpoena or other demand for information protected by Model Rule 1.6, the client will promptly respond to the lawyer's request for instructions, and (iii) the client agrees to pay all reasonable fees and costs associated with any production or judicial proceedings in response to a subpoena or other demand. Even if no fee agreement is reached—either in the initial retainer letter or during a consultation following the lawyer's receipt of the demand—the lawyer nevertheless may be required to challenge the initial demand, as discussed below. 21\n\n#### **C. Where the Client is Unavailable for Consultation**\n\nWhere the client is unavailable for consultation after the lawyer has made reasonable efforts to notify the client, the lawyer \"*should* assert on behalf of the client all non-frivolous claims that . . . the information sought is protected against disclosure by the attorney-client privilege or other applicable law.\"<sup>22</sup> The lawyer has this obligation to assert all reasonable objections and claims when the lawyer receives the initial demand.<sup>23</sup> During\n\n<sup>20.</sup> ABA MODEL RULE 1.5(b) (2015).\n\n<sup>21.</sup> *See, e.g.*, D.C. Bar Op. 288 fn4 (1999) (\" . . . [even] if no agreement on fees and expenses is reached regarding the efforts to protect the confidential information [demanded by a subpoena], the lawyer must nevertheless take all ethically required steps to protect the privilege even if not compensated for the services by the client.\"). A later suit in *quantum meruit* for the services rendered may be available to the lawyer but that is an issue of law beyond the jurisdiction of this Committee. Alternatively, a lawyer may seek to withdraw as appropriate under Rule 1.16.\n\n<sup>22.</sup> ABA MODEL RULE 1.6 cmt. [15] (2015) (emphasis added). *See* RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW, *supra* note 8, § 63 cmt. b (\"A lawyer generally is required to raise any reasonably tenable objection to another's attempt to obtain confidential client information . . . from the lawyer if revealing the information would disadvantage the lawyer's client and the client has not consented . . .\"); Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility of the Supreme Ct. of Tennessee Formal Op. 2014-F-158 (2014) (\"[i]n the absence of informed consent of the client, the lawyer must reveal the information or document if ordered to [do] so by the tribunal, but only after the lawyer has raised all non-frivolous objections that the information sought is protected against disclosure by the attorney-client privilege or other applicable law\"); D.C. Bar Op. 288 (1999) (\" . . . . A lawyer generally is required to raise any reasonably tenable objection to another's attempt to obtain confidential information . . . , unless disclosure would serve the client's interests . . . .\" (citations omitted); D.C. Bar Op. 14 (1976) (\". . . [W]hen documents are subpoenaed or an effort is otherwise made to compel their disclosure, it is the lawyer's ethical duty to a former client to assert on the former client's behalf every objection or claim of privilege available to him when to fail to do so might be prejudicial to the client\"); Kentucky Bar Ass'n Op. E-315 (1987) (upon receiving a grand jury subpoena for client documents a lawyer \"must respond by asserting any privilege (i.e., the attorney-client privilege) . . . .\") (citations omitted); New Jersey Advisory Comm. on Prof'l Ethics Op. 145 (1969) (\". . . if the client fails to respond to the attorney's letter his silence cannot be construed as consent and it would be improper to turn over copies of the [client's documents absent a court order] . . . .\").\n\n<sup>23.</sup> Appropriate objections and claims may vary with the jurisdiction. In some states, e.g., California, a lawyer may be *required* to raise certain claims or objections. *See, e.g*., CAL. EVIDENCE CODE § 955 (1965) (lawyer who received or made a communication subject to the privilege under this article shall claim the privilege whenever he is present when the communication is sought to be disclosed and is authorized to claim\n\nthe proceeding before the court or other tribunal, the lawyer should explain the lawyer's diligent but unsuccessful efforts to reach the client. If the lawyer is ordered to produce the documents and records, paragraph (b)(6) permits the lawyer to comply with the court order, as discussed below.\n\n#### **D. Complying With the Court Order**\n\nAs noted, relying in part on then Comment [20], Formal Opinion 94-385 declared that a \"lawyer must comply with the *final* orders of a court or other tribunal of competent jurisdiction requiring the lawyer to give information about the client.\"<sup>24</sup> Other authorities also direct a lawyer to comply with \"final\" orders of a court or other tribunal.<sup>25</sup> Questions have arisen as to whether the reference to \"final order\" in Formal Opinion 94-385 and elsewhere requires a lawyer to appeal an adverse ruling when the client cannot be located or is unavailable for consultation.\n\nModel Rule 1.6(b)(6) makes no reference to a \"final\" order. The comments adopted in 2002 make no reference to \"final\" orders. Comment [15] reads simply, \"In the event of an adverse ruling, the lawyer must consult with the client about the possibility of appeal to the extent required by Rule 1.4. Unless review is sought, however, paragraph (b)(6) permits the lawyer to comply with the court's order.\"<sup>26</sup> The text thus suggests that omitting the reference to \"final\" orders was meant to relieve the lawyer from the added burden of pursuing an appeal or other \"final\" disposition, unless appropriate arrangements are made with an available client. The obligation of the lawyer with regard to an appeal is particularly relevant if the client or former client is unavailable. 27\n\nRequiring a lawyer to take an appeal when the client is unavailable places significant and undue burdens on the lawyer. An appeal costs money and takes time away from other clients. Taking an appeal on behalf of an unavailable client forces the lawyer to act without consultation and direction. While such clients need and deserve protection in\n\nthe privilege under subdivision (c) of § 954). In other states, by contrast, a lawyer may be *forbidden* from raising certain objections or claims.\n\n<sup>24.</sup> ABA Comm. on Ethics & Prof'l Responsibility, Formal Op. 94-385, at 2 (emphasis added). Prior to the adoption of the amendments in 2002, Comment [20] to Model Rule 1.6 also said, a \"lawyer must comply with the *final* orders of a court or other tribunal of competent jurisdiction requiring the lawyer to give information about the client.\" *See* A LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, *supra* note 7, at 129 (emphasis added).\n\n<sup>25.</sup> *See, e.g.*, Rhode Island Supreme Ct. Ethics Advisory Panel Op. 98-02 (1998) (upon receiving a demand for confidential information a lawyer \"has professional responsibility to seek to limit subpoena [sic] or court order on any legitimate ground, such as attorney-client privilege, work product immunity, burden or relevance . . . . The . . . attorney must comply, however, with the *final* orders of a court requiring him/her to produce the documents sought or to give information about the former client\" (emphasis added) (citing ABA Formal Opinion 94-385)). *See also* State Bar of Arizona Op. 00-11 (2000) (discussing, *inter alia*, a comment to Arizona RPC 1.6, which says, \"\"The lawyer must comply with the *final* orders of a court or other tribunal . . . [requiring disclosure]\" but noting that \"[w]hat constitutes a 'final order' is problematic. Criminal attorneys might well argue that before revealing any such confidential information . . . the lawyer must await a final order by the highest court of appellate review and the mandate is spread relative thereto, if the original order of the lower court is appealed\") (emphasis added).\n\n<sup>26.</sup> ABA MODEL RULE 1.6 cmt. [15] (2015).\n\n<sup>27.</sup> *See* the Reporter's comment in A LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, *supra* note 7, at 132.\n\nresponse to an initial demand—to avoid improper and unjustified access to information and documents that the rules protect even after the client's death<sup>28</sup>—the balance changes once a court or other tribunal has ruled on the lawyer's initial objection. In the absence of instructions from the client to appeal, the ethics rules do not require a lawyer to shoulder further burdens. Accordingly, a lawyer is not ethically required to take an appeal on behalf of a client whom the lawyer cannot locate after due diligence. 29\n\nOnce a lawyer determines disclosure is appropriate—in response to an initial demand or to an order and whether or not the client is available—the lawyer may produce documents and information \"only to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes . . . is necessary . . . .\" 30 The lawyer should seek appropriate protective orders and similar arrangements \"to the fullest extent practicable.\" 31 \"[D]isclosure should be made in a manner that limits access to the information to the tribunal or other persons having a need to know it . . . .\" 32\n\n#### **III. Conclusion**\n\nA lawyer receiving a subpoena or other compulsory process for information or documents relating to the representation of a client has several obligations. If the client is available, the lawyer must consult the client. If instructed by the client or if the client is unavailable, the lawyer must assert all reasonable claims against disclosure and seek to limit the subpoena or other demand on any reasonable ground.\n\nIf ordered to disclose confidential or privileged information and the client is available, a lawyer must consult with the client about whether to produce the information or to appeal. If the client and the lawyer disagree about how to respond to the initial demand or to an order requiring disclosure, the lawyer should consider withdrawing pursuant to Model Rule 1.16. If disclosure is ordered and the client is unavailable for consultation, the lawyer is not ethically required to appeal.\n\nWhen disclosing documents and information—whether in response to an initial demand or to a court order and whether or not the client is available—the lawyer may reveal information only to the extent reasonably necessary. The lawyer should seek appropriate protective orders or other protective arrangements so that access to the information is limited to the tribunal ordering its disclosure and to persons having a need to know.\n\n<sup>28.</sup> Swidler & Berlin v. U.S., 524 U.S. 399 (1998) (obligations of confidentiality continue even after the death of a client); Jamaica Pub. Serv. Co. v. AIU Ins. Co., 684 N.Y.S.2d 459, 462 (N.Y. 1998) (an attorney owes a \"continuing duty\" to a former client not to reveal confidences learned in the course of a professional relationship).\n\n<sup>29.</sup> When challenging the subpoena or other demand in the first instance the lawyer should explain to the court or other tribunal the lawyer's efforts to locate the client and the client's unavailability.\n\n<sup>30.</sup> ABA MODEL RULE 1.6 cmt. [16] (2015).\n\n<sup>31.</sup> *Id.*\n\n<sup>32.</sup> *Id.*\n\nWhere the client is available, the lawyer is not required to act without a fee but arrangements regarding the scope of the work and fee arrangements must conform to the relevant rules.<sup>33</sup> Where the client is unavailable to make retention and fee arrangements, the lawyer is nevertheless required to challenge the demand in the first instance. Lawyers should consider providing for these situations in retainer agreements.\n\n33. *See, e.g.*, ABA MODEL RULE 1.5 (2015).\n\n**AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION STANDING COMMITTEE ON ETHICS AND PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY**\n\n321 N. Clark Street, Chicago, Illinois 60654-4714 Telephone (312) 988-5328\n\nCHAIR: Myles V. Lynk, Tempe, AZ ■ Arthur D. Burger, Washington, DC ■ Wendy Wen Yun Chang, Los Angeles, CA ■ Robert A. Creamer, Cambridge, MA ■ Hon. Daniel J. Crothers, Bismarck, ND ■ Keith R. Fisher, Arlington, VA ■ Barbara S. Gillers, New York, NY ■ Amanda Jones, Chicago, IL ■ Hope Cahill Todd, Washington, DC ■ Allison L. Wood, Chicago, IL\n\n**CENTER FOR PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY:** Dennis A. Rendleman, Ethics Counsel, Mary McDermott, Associate Ethics Counsel **©2016 by the American Bar Association. All rights reserved.**","body_zh":"附件\n\nA\n美国律师协会\n\n伦理与职业责任常设委员会\n正式意见第473号 2016年2月17日\n收到关于客户文件或信息的传票或其他强制程序时的义务\n\n收到与代理客户有关的文件或信息之传票或其他强制程序的律师负有若干义务。如客户可以联系，律师必须与客户协商。如经客户指示，或客户无法联系，律师必须就披露提出一切合理主张，并以任何合理理由寻求限制传票或其他初步要求。如被命令披露保密或享有特权的信息，且客户可以联系，律师必须与客户协商是提供该信息还是提起上诉。如客户与律师对于如何回应初步要求或要求披露的命令存在分歧，律师应考虑依《示范规则》1.16退出代理。如已命令披露且客户无法联系以进行协商，律师在伦理上并无提起上诉的义务。无论是回应初步要求还是命令披露文件和信息，也无论客户是否可以联系，律师仅可在合理必要的范围内披露信息。律师应寻求适当的保护令或其他保护安排，以使对该信息的访问限于命令披露该信息的法院或其他裁判机构以及有知悉必要的人员。\n\nI. 引言\n\n近日，由于《示范规则》1.6(b)(6)于十多年前的2002年获采纳（当时为1.6(b)(4)），委员会被要求重新审视关于律师档案传票的正式意见94-385（1994年7月5日）。《示范规则》1.6(b)(6)规定：“律师可以在其合理认为为遵守其他法律或法院命令所必需的范围内，披露与代理客户有关的信息。”1\n\n在发布正式意见94-385时，《示范规则》1.6(b)仅在两种情形下允许律师披露保密信息：(i) 为防止某些犯罪，\n\n1. ABA MODEL RULE 1.6(b)(6) (2015)（原文强调）。“其他法律”一语通常指法定或监管要求。参见，例如，State Bar of Michigan Advisory Op. RI-311 (1999)（法规要求律师向Legal Services Corporation报告客户的姓名和地址）；State Bar of Michigan Advisory Op. RI-54 (1990)（《国内税收法典》要求向Internal Revenue Service报告超过\\$10,000.00的现金交易）。尽管两个短语之间有所重叠，本意见主要处理收到传票或其他初步要求的律师所负的义务，而该等要求已或可能由法院或其他裁判机构强制执行。在本意见中，“传票”“要求”“强制程序”及类似术语可互换使用，指实体、个人或政府机构提出的任何初步要求，其寻求受《示范规则》1.6(a)保护的信息，且已或可能通过强制程序予以执行。“法院”或“裁判机构”是指法院、有约束力仲裁程序中的仲裁员或立法机构，以及以裁决身份行事的行政机构或其他机构，并包括《示范规则》1.0(m)含义范围内的任何其他“裁判机构”。\n\n以及(ii)代表律师本人确立某些请求权或抗辩权。2 正式意见94-385部分依据当时的评注[20]，建议律师“必须遵守有管辖权的法院或其他裁判机构作出的最终命令，该命令要求律师提供有关客户的信息。”3 该意见解释称，这“并不意味着律师应当对政府机构——或者就此而言任何其他个人或实体——试图审查其档案或记录的行为充当消极旁观者。”4 而是，\n\n当政府机构向律师送达传票或法院命令，指示律师向该机构提交与其代理客户有关的律师档案时，律师负有职业责任，以任何合法可用的理由（如律师—客户特权、工作成果豁免、相关性或负担）寻求限制传票或法院命令，以保护律师依规则1.6所负义务适用的文件。仅在律师限制传票或命令的努力未获成功时——无论在初审法院，还是在允许就该问题提起中间上诉的司法管辖区的上诉法院——且法院明确命令其向政府机构提交律师认为享有特权的文件时，律师方可如此行事。5\n\n自正式意见94-385发布后的二十一年，以及自Ethics 2000修正案后的十四年间，就律师应如何回应针对客户信息和文件的传票、要求或其他强制程序，出现了更多问题。这些问题包括：如须作出披露，其范围应有多大？律师应当或必须寻求何种保护措施（如有）？客户无法联系以进行协商时，义务是否不同？客户可以联系以进行协商，但回应该要求超出当前代理范围时，律师应如何处理继续受聘及费用安排？如客户与律师对于如何回应——无论是初步要求，还是在被命令披露之后——存在分歧，律师负有何种义务？律师是否必须为无法联系的客户就不利决定提起上诉？律师是否应当或可以在聘用函中对这些可能情形作出规定？本意见就这些及相关问题提供指引。此处提供的意见更新并扩展了正式意见94-385中的意见。\n\nII. 讨论\n\n规则1.6(b)允许但并不要求律师披露与代理客户有关的信息（“律师可以披露信息”），而该等信息本会受到规则1.6(a)禁止披露。6 规则1.6(b)的七项规定均列明对1.6(a)禁止规定的一项例外，且每项规定均允许披露。7\n\n例如，规则1.6(b)(6)明确规定，律师不得主张1.6(a)禁止遵守法院命令。规则1.6(a)允许披露与代理有关的信息，“如该等披露获第(b)款允许”，而(b)(6)项允许律师为“遵守其他法律或法院命令”而披露信息。律师必须遵守法院命令，但不影响其向法院申请撤销或修改该命令或对该命令提起上诉的任何权利。8 但面临要求披露客户保密信息之法院命令的律师，仍须处理复杂、关键且高度依赖具体事实的问题，例如，应考虑何种异议、应披露何种具体信息，以及应寻求何种保护措施。在作出此等判断时，律师必须在其作为客户辩护人和法院官员的双重角色所固有的义务之间取得平衡。9 在此过程中，律师仅应在其“合理认为为遵守命令所必需”的范围内披露客户保密信息。10 (b)(6)项使律师能够——事实上要求律师——作出这些审慎判断。\n\nA. 通知与协商\n\n律师在收到索取客户档案和信息的要求时所负的通知和协商义务，对于现有客户和前客户基本相同。首先，律师必须通知——或尝试通知——客户。11 对于前客户，律师必须作出合理努力联系客户，例如进行互联网搜索、电话、传真、电子邮件或其他电子通信，以及向客户最后已知地址寄送信函。为联系特定客户而须作出的具体努力，将取决于律师收到要求时存在的情形。但这些努力必须在《示范规则》1.0(h)意义内属于合理，并应记录在律师档案中。\n\n律师对客户所负义务将因客户是否可以联系以进行协商而异。客户可以联系时，律师必须就如何回应该要求与客户协商。12 《示范规则》1.4应指导此类协商。\n\n规则1.4指示律师“及时告知客户任何需要客户知情同意的决定或情形”，并“在合理必要的范围内解释该事项，以使客户能够作出知情决定。”13 规则1.6(a)允许律师在取得客户知情同意的情况下披露与代理有关的信息。14 “‘知情同意’是指，在律师已传达之后，个人对拟议行为方案作出的同意\n\n13. ABA MODEL RULE 1.4 (2015).\n\n14. 参见 ABA MODEL RULE 1.6(a) (2015)（禁止律师披露保密信息，除非客户给予“知情同意”）。\n\n11. 参见，例如，State Bar of Michigan（密歇根州律师协会）咨询意见 CI-925 (1983)（律师在收到与其代理客户相关文件的传票时，必须通知客户）（引文略）；Alaska Bar Ass'n（阿拉斯加律师协会）意见 96-3 (1996)（在收到要求提供保密信息或文件的请求后，律师应当尝试就该请求联系客户）。另见 Linda G. Bauer（琳达·G·鲍尔），Subpoena Savvy: What To Do When Your Client's File is Subpoenaed (Nov. 2002), [www.mass.gov/obcbbo/subpoena.htm]（“……律师应首先尝试联系前客户，以确定客户是否同意披露。”）；D.C. Bar（哥伦比亚特区律师协会）意见 14 (1976)，第 2 页（“律师在收到要求提供其在代理该前客户期间占有的文件，或影响或可能影响该前客户的文件的传票时，应立即通知其前客户”）；Pennsylvania Legal Ethics & Prof'l Responsibility Comm.（宾夕法尼亚州法律伦理与职业责任委员会）意见 2002-106 (2003)（“律师可以遵从私人仲裁中作出的披露客户保密信息的命令，但必须首先向仲裁庭提出保密性问题，并通知任何其保密信息受到涉及的客户。律师应当设法限制披露的范围和影响。”）。\n\n12. 参见 ABA MODEL RULE 1.6 cmt. [15] (2015)（在回应由“法院或其他审裁机构或政府实体”提出的、与代理有关的信息命令或要求之前，规则 1.4 要求与客户协商）。规则 1.6 通过示范规则 1.9(c)(1) 和 (2) 向前客户提供保护，该规则规定：“曾在某一事项中代理客户的律师，或其现任或前任律师事务所曾在某一事项中代理客户的律师，此后不得：(1) 利用与该代理有关的信息损害前客户，除非这些规则就客户允许或要求如此行事……；或 (2) 披露与该代理有关的信息，除非这些规则就客户允许或要求如此行事。”另见 Swidler & Berlin（斯威德勒与柏林律师事务所） v. U.S.（美国），524 U.S. 399 (1998)（保密义务在客户死亡后仍持续存在）；Jamaica Pub. Serv. Co.（牙买加公共服务公司） v AIU Ins. Co.（AIU 保险公司），684 N.Y.S.2d 459, 462 (N.Y. 1998)（律师对前客户负有“不披露在职业关系过程中知悉的保密事项”的“持续义务”）。另见 ABA Comm. on Ethics & Prof'l Responsibility（美国律师协会伦理与职业责任委员会），正式意见 10-456 fn8（“在通常情况下，当律师被要求就前客户作证或提供文件时，律师保护律师—客户特权的义务同样适用，不亚于对现客户的适用”）；Rhode Island Supreme Ct. Ethics Advisory Panel（罗得岛州最高法院伦理咨询小组）意见 2013-05，第 3 页 (2013)（规则 1.6 规定的义务即使在客户死亡后仍持续存在；即使在此情形下，“律师仍有职业责任，以律师—客户特权、工作成果豁免、负担或关联性等任何正当理由，设法限制[a]传票或法院命令，以保护适用规则 1.6 义务的信息”）（引自 ABA 正式意见 94-385）。\n\n关于拟议行为方案的重大风险及合理可得替代方案的充分信息和说明。”15\n\n协商的内容将取决于具体情况。至少应包括：(i) 对规则 1.6(a) 和 (b) 所提供保护的说明，(ii) 律师—客户特权、工作成果原则或其他保护或豁免是否适用及适用的程度，以及 (iii) 任何其他相关事项。其他相关事项例如包括，“在民事程序中披露客户保密信息可能引发客户潜在刑事责任的范围内，应在协商过程中向客户说明其后果。”16 律师还可能需要讨论传票或其他要求是否有效，以及所要求的文件是否含有可能构成依据第五修正案提出拒绝披露特权主张的自我归罪信息。\n\n如经协商后，客户希望对该要求提出异议，律师应在适当情况下并遵照客户指示，基于任何合理理由对该要求提出异议。若在提出异议后，法院或其他审裁机构作出不利于撤回或修改命令或提交要求之动议的裁决，“律师必须在规则 1.4 所要求的范围内，就上诉的可能性与客户协商。”17 如果客户决定不上诉并就披露作出知情同意，律师必须依照客户指示并按照本意见第 IIC 部分所述提供文件和信息。\n\n如果律师与客户就如何回应最初要求或不利裁决存在分歧，或者客户希望聘请新的律师，律师有若干选择和一定义务。对于现客户，例如，当最初要求或上诉属于受聘范围时，律师可以依照示范规则 1.16 申请退出代理。18 当最初要求或上诉构成现客户的新事项，或涉及前客户且该客户希望寻求其他律师时，律师应在客户寻找其他律师期间采取合理措施保护客户利益。19\n\nB. 费用安排\n\n在回应超出当前受聘范围的要求时，或当该要求涉及前客户的信息和文件时，律师可能需要在协商期间讨论费用和聘用安排。然而，律师在这样做时必须遵守相关规则。例如，根据示范规则 1.5(b)，“代理范围以及客户应负责的费用和支出的依据或费率，应当在开始代理之前或开始代理后的合理时间内告知客户，最好采用书面形式；但律师将按相同依据或费率向经常代理的客户收费的情形除外。”20\n\n15. ABA MODEL RULE 1.0(e) (2015).\n\n16. 参见 Bauer，同上注 11。\n\n17. ABA MODEL RULE 1.6 cmt. [15] (2015).\n\n18. 参见 ABA MODEL RULE 1.16(b)(1), (4), (7) & 1.16(c) (2015).\n\n19. 参见 ABA MODEL RULE 1.16(d) (2015).\n\n律师还可考虑在最初的聘用函中通过纳入以下条款对这些情形作出规定：(i) 即使代理已经结束，客户仍将使律师知悉联系客户的方式，(ii) 如律师收到要求提供受示范规则 1.6 保护的信息的传票或其他要求，客户将立即回应律师提出的指示请求，以及 (iii) 客户同意支付与回应传票或其他要求而进行的任何提交或司法程序相关的所有合理费用和成本。即使未能就费用达成协议——无论是在最初的聘用函中，还是在律师收到该要求后进行的协商中——律师仍可能被要求对最初要求提出异议，如下文所述。21\n\nC. 客户无法进行协商时\n\n如果律师已作出合理努力通知客户后，客户仍无法进行协商，律师“应代表客户提出所有非轻率的主张，即……所要求的信息受到律师—客户特权或其他适用法律保护，不得披露。”22 律师在收到最初要求时，负有提出所有合理异议和主张的义务。23 在\n\n20. ABA MODEL RULE 1.5(b) (2015).\n\n21. 参见，例如，D.C. Bar（哥伦比亚特区律师协会）意见 288 fn4 (1999)（“……[即使]就保护[传票所要求的]保密信息所作努力的费用和支出未达成协议，律师仍必须采取伦理规则所要求的一切步骤保护特权，即使客户未就该等服务支付报酬。”）。律师可能可以就已提供的服务在日后提起按劳酬偿之诉，但这属于超出本委员会管辖范围的法律问题。或者，律师可以依规则 1.16 在适当情况下申请退出代理。\n\n22. ABA MODEL RULE 1.6 cmt. [15] (2015)（着重号为后加）。参见 RESTATEMENT OF THE LAW，同上注 8，§ 63 cmt. b（“如果披露该信息将不利于律师的客户，且客户未同意……，律师通常须对他人试图从律师处获取客户保密信息……提出任何有合理根据的异议……”）；Bd. of Prof'l Responsibility of the Supreme Ct. of Tennessee（田纳西州最高法院职业责任委员会）正式意见 2014-F-158 (2014)（“在没有客户知情同意的情况下，如审裁机构命令律师如此行事，律师必须披露该信息或文件，但仅限于律师已提出所有非轻率异议，即所要求的信息受到律师—客户特权或其他适用法律保护，不得披露之后”）；D.C. Bar（哥伦比亚特区律师协会）意见 288 (1999)（“……律师通常须对他人试图获取保密信息……提出任何有合理根据的异议，除非披露将符合客户利益……”（引文略））；D.C. Bar（哥伦比亚特区律师协会）意见 14 (1976)（“……当文件被传唤，或以其他方式试图强制披露文件时，如果不这样做可能有损客户利益，律师对前客户负有伦理义务，代表该前客户提出其可提出的每一项异议或特权主张”）；Kentucky Bar Ass'n（肯塔基州律师协会）意见 E-315 (1987)（律师收到要求提供客户文件的大陪审团传票后，“必须通过主张任何特权（即律师—客户特权）……作出回应。”）（引文略）；New Jersey Advisory Comm. on Prof'l Ethics（新泽西州职业伦理咨询委员会）意见 145 (1969)（“……如果客户未回复律师的信函，其沉默不得被解释为同意，在没有法院命令的情况下交出[客户文件的副本]将不适当……”）。\n\n23. 适当的异议和主张可能因管辖区而异。在一些州，例如 California（加利福尼亚州），律师可能被要求提出某些主张或异议。参见，例如，CAL. EVIDENCE CODE § 955 (1965)（收到或作出受本条所规定特权保护的通信的律师，在该通信被寻求披露时只要在场，并获授权主张\n\n在法院或其他审裁机构的程序中，律师应说明其曾尽职但未成功地联系客户的努力。如律师被命令提供文件和记录，第 (b)(6) 款允许律师遵从法院命令，如下文所述。\n\nD. 遵从法院命令\n\n如前所述，正式意见 94-385 部分依据当时的评注 [20]，宣称“律师必须遵从有管辖权的法院或其他审裁机构作出的、要求律师提供有关客户信息的最终命令。”24 其他权威资料也指示律师遵从法院或其他审裁机构的“最终”命令。25 已出现的问题是，正式意见 94-385 及其他地方对“最终命令”的提及，是否要求律师在无法找到客户或客户无法进行协商时，对不利裁决提起上诉。\n\n《示范规则》（Model Rule）1.6(b)(6)未提及“最终”命令。2002年通过的评注未提及“最终”命令。评注[15]仅规定：“如作出不利裁定，律师必须在规则1.4要求的范围内，就上诉的可能性与客户协商。然而，除非寻求复审，(b)(6)款允许律师遵从法院的命令。”26 因此，该文本表明，删去对“最终”命令的提及，旨在免除律师承担寻求上诉或其他“最终”处置的额外负担，除非已与能够联系到的客户作出适当安排。若客户或前客户无法联系，律师就上诉所负的义务尤为相关。27\n\n要求律师在客户无法联系时提起上诉，会给律师施加重大且不适当的负担。上诉需要花费金钱，并会占用服务其他客户的时间。代表无法联系的客户提起上诉，迫使律师在未经协商和没有指示的情况下行事。虽然此类客户在下列情形中需要且应当获得保护：\n\n§ 954(c)款规定的特权）。相比之下，在其他州，律师可能被禁止提出某些异议或主张。\n\n24. ABA（美国律师协会）职业道德与专业责任委员会，正式意见94-385，第2页（着重号为原文所加）。在2002年修正案通过之前，《示范规则》1.6的评注[20]也规定，律师“必须遵从具有管辖权的法院或其他审裁机构作出的最终命令，该命令要求律师提供有关客户的信息。”参见 A LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, supra note 7, at 129（着重号为原文所加）。\n\n25. 参见，例如，Rhode Island Supreme Ct. Ethics Advisory Panel Op. 98-02 (1998)（律师在收到索取保密信息的要求后，“有专业责任基于任何正当理由寻求限制传票[sic]或法院命令，例如律师—客户特权、工作成果豁免权、负担或相关性……然而，律师必须遵从法院作出的最终命令，要求其提交所寻求的文件或提供有关前客户的信息”（着重号为原文所加）（援引 ABA Formal Opinion 94-385））。另参见 State Bar of Arizona Op. 00-11 (2000)（其中讨论了 Arizona RPC 1.6的一则评注，该评注规定：“律师必须遵从法院或其他审裁机构……［要求披露的］最终命令”，但指出“何谓‘最终命令’存在问题。刑事律师很可能主张，在披露任何此类保密信息之前……若下级法院的原命令已被上诉，律师必须等待最高上诉法院作出最终命令，并就此发布执行令”）（着重号为原文所加）。\n\n26. ABA MODEL RULE 1.6 cmt. [15] (2015)。\n\n27. 参见 A LEGISLATIVE HISTORY, supra note 7, at 132 中的报告人评注。\n\n为回应最初要求——以避免他人不当且无正当理由地获取即使在客户死亡后规则仍予以保护的信息和文件28——但一旦法院或其他审裁机构已就律师的初步异议作出裁定，利益平衡即发生变化。如客户未指示上诉，道德规则不要求律师承担进一步负担。因此，律师在经合理勤勉后仍无法找到客户的，不负有代表该客户提起上诉的道德义务。29\n\n一旦律师确定披露适当——无论是为回应最初要求还是回应命令，也无论客户是否能够联系——律师仅可提供其“合理相信……属必要……范围内”的文件和信息。30 律师应在“实际可行的最大范围内”寻求适当的保护令及类似安排。31 “［应］以限制审裁机构或其他有知悉必要之人获取该信息的方式作出披露……”32\n\nIII. 结论\n\n收到要求提供与代理客户有关的信息或文件的传票或其他强制性法律程序的律师，负有数项义务。如客户能够联系，律师必须与客户协商。如客户作出指示，或者客户无法联系，律师必须提出一切合理的反对披露主张，并基于任何合理理由寻求限制传票或其他要求。\n\n如被命令披露保密或享有特权的信息，且客户能够联系，律师必须就提交该信息或提起上诉的问题与客户协商。如客户与律师对于如何回应最初要求或要求披露的命令存在分歧，律师应考虑根据《示范规则》1.16退出代理。如已命令披露且客户无法联系以进行协商，律师不负有提起上诉的道德义务。\n\n在披露文件和信息时——无论是为回应最初要求还是法院命令，也无论客户是否能够联系——律师仅可在合理必要的范围内披露信息。律师应寻求适当的保护令或其他保护性安排，以便将信息的获取限制于命令披露该信息的审裁机构及有知悉必要之人。\n\n28. Swidler & Berlin v. U.S., 524 U.S. 399 (1998)（保密义务在客户死亡后仍持续存在）；Jamaica Pub. Serv. Co. v. AIU Ins. Co., 684 N.Y.S.2d 459, 462 (N.Y. 1998)（律师对前客户负有“持续性义务”，不得披露在专业关系过程中获悉的秘密）。\n\n29. 律师首次对传票或其他要求提出异议时，应向法院或其他审裁机构说明其寻找客户所作的努力以及客户无法联系的情况。\n\n30. ABA MODEL RULE 1.6 cmt. [16] (2015)。\n\n31. 同上。\n\n32. 同上。\n\n如客户能够联系，律师无须无偿行事，但有关工作范围和费用安排必须符合相关规则。33 如客户无法联系以作出委托和费用安排，律师仍须在首次回应时对该要求提出异议。律师应考虑在委托协议中对这些情形作出规定。\n\n33. 参见，例如，ABA MODEL RULE 1.5 (2015)。\n\nAMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION（美国律师协会）\n职业道德与专业责任常设委员会\n\n321 N. Clark Street, Chicago, Illinois 60654-4714 电话 (312) 988-5328\n\n主席：Myles V. Lynk（迈尔斯·V. 林克），亚利桑那州坦佩 ■ Arthur D. Burger（阿瑟·D. 伯格），哥伦比亚特区华盛顿 ■ Wendy Wen Yun Chang（温迪·文云·张），加利福尼亚州洛杉矶 ■ Robert A. Creamer（罗伯特·A. 克里默），马萨诸塞州剑桥 ■ Hon. Daniel J. Crothers（丹尼尔·J. 克罗瑟斯法官），北达科他州俾斯麦 ■ Keith R. Fisher（基思·R. 费舍尔），弗吉尼亚州阿灵顿 ■ Barbara S. Gillers（芭芭拉·S. 吉勒斯），纽约州纽约市 ■ Amanda Jones（阿曼达·琼斯），伊利诺伊州芝加哥 ■ Hope Cahill Todd（霍普·卡希尔·托德），哥伦比亚特区华盛顿 ■ Allison L. Wood（艾莉森·L. 伍德），伊利诺伊州芝加哥\n\n专业责任中心：Dennis A. Rendleman（丹尼斯·A. 伦德尔曼），道德顾问，Mary McDermott（玛丽·麦克德莫特），副道德顾问 ©2016 American Bar Association. 保留所有权利。","key_entities":["Je","CIPA"],"ecf_references":[],"word_count":4951,"status":"published","published_at":null,"created_at":null,"updated_at":"2026-08-23 18:43:41"}