Ethics Opinon 2001-1
ISSUE
May an attorney condition delivery of copies of significant
documents in the client's file to the client on the client's
prior payment of the copying expense when the representation
has not been terminated? (1)
CONCLUSION
An attorney may not condition delivery of copies of significant
documents in the client's files to the client on the client's
prior payment of the copying expense regardless of a provision
in the fee agreement to the contrary.
AUTHORITIES INTERPRETED
Rules 3-500 and 3-700 of the California Rules of Professional
Conduct
STATEMENT
OF FACTS
A fee contract provides that the client must pay the cost
of copying any documents in the file that the attorney gives
the client throughout the course of representation. While
the representation is on going, the client fails or is unwilling
to pay the copying charges in advance.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to the Attorney's Oath (2),
two rules of the California Rules of Professional Conduct
address the issue of copying documents in a client's file.
Rule 3-500 focuses on copying documents during the course
of representation and Rule 3-700 focuses on copying documents
upon termination of employment.
Rule
3-500 provides:
A member
shall keep a client informed about significant developments
relating to the employment or representation, including
promptly complying with reasonable requests for information
and copies of significant documents when necessary to keep
the client so informed.
The
Discussion section of Rule 3-500 clarifies the copying obligation:
A member
may contract with the client in their employment agreement
that the client assumes responsibility for the cost of copying
significant documents. This rule is not intended to prohibit
a claim for the recovery of the member's expense in any
subsequent legal proceeding.
Rule 3-700(D) provides in part:
A member whose employment has terminated shall:
(1) Subject to any protective order or nondisclosure agreement,
promptly release to the client, at the request of the client,
all the client papers and property. "Client papers
and property" includes correspondence, pleadings, deposition
transcripts, exhibits, physical evidence, expert's reports,
and other items reasonably necessary to the client's representation,
whether the client has paid for them or not. (Emphasis added.)
The discussion to Rule 3-700 clarifies the copying obligation:
Paragraph (D) is not intended to prohibit a member from
making, at the member's own expense, and retaining copies
of papers released to the client, nor to prohibit a claim
for the recovery of the member's expense in any subsequent
legal proceeding.
This discussion also states that this subparagraph was intended
to codify existing case law, and cites Weiss v. Marcus (1975)
51 Cal. App. 3d 590. Weiss held that an attorney can not
ethically withhold the client's files for non-payment of
the attorney's outstanding bill at the time of termination.
What is clear from a literal reading of these two rules
and their accompanying discussions is that an attorney (i)
may charge a client for the cost of copying (3)
during the representation and at or after termination if
the fee agreement so provides; (ii) may sue the client for
failure to pay any copying costs authorized by the fee agreement
after termination; and, (iii) must not condition delivery
of the file at or after termination upon the client's prior
payment for those documents. Kallen v. Delug (1984) 157
CA3d 940, 950, 203 CR 879, 885 (attorney's attempt to condition
delivery of files on promise to pay after termination is
void as contrary to public policy). LA County Bar Assn.
Form. Opn. No.'s 48, 103, 197, 253, 330. See also, Vapnek,
P., et al., supra at §10:334.
What is not clear is whether an attorney may condition his
obligation to give the client copies of significant documents
(4) during the course of representation
on the advance payment of copying costs if the fee agreement
so states. Unlike Rule 3-700, Rule 3-500 does not include
the express proviso that the attorney must give the client
copies of significant documents throughout the course of
representation whether the client has paid for them or not.
This obvious omission infers that the drafters of Rule 3-500
intended to allow attorneys to treat copying charges during
the course of representation different from copying charges
upon termination. However, we believe the opposite conclusion
must prevail for two reasons.
First, the analysis of why conditioning delivery of files
on payment of copying expenses is void under Rule 3-700
applies as forcefully to the copying provision of Rule 3-500.
Rule 3-700 invalidates such a fee provision because it is
not supported by consideration: the attorney is already
obligated by law to turn over the client's file so the provision
is illusory. Kallen v. Delug, supra, 157 CA3d 940, 950.
Since Rule 3-500 requires an attorney to give clients copies
of significant documents during the representation, a fee
provision that conditions delivery on the advance payment
of copying costs also lacks consideration and, therefore,
is illusory.
Second, the rationale behind both rules is the same: to
prevent prejudice to the client. See, Rule 1-100(A). An
attorney's failure to give clients copies of significant
documents, such as those with time limits, during representation
is as detrimental as an attorney's failure to turn over
clients' files upon termination because clients cannot protect
themselves "in the dark." See, B&P Code §6068(n)
and Rule 3-700, Discussion. "Where the reason is the
same, the rule should be the same" (Civ. Code §3511);
"[t]he law respects form less than substance"
(Civ. Code §3528).
Based on the foregoing analysis, we conclude that an attorney
must give the client a copy of significant documents throughout
the course of the attorney's representation whether or not
the client has paid for them. Any provision in a fee agreement
to the contrary is void as contrary to public policy. The
attorney's recourse is to recover the copying charges after
the representation terminates if the fee agreement authorizes
them and the client fails to pay them. See, Rule 3-500,
Discussion.
(1)
For the purpose of this Opinion, "client" refers
to a present or former client or the client's new attorney
when acting at the direction of the client.
(2) The Attorney's Oath, set forth in Business and Professions
Code section 6068, provides:
It is the duty of an attorney to do all of the following:
. . . .
(n) To provide copies to the client of certain documents
under time limits and as prescribed in a rule of professional
conduct which the Board shall adopt.
(3) Such costs must in any event be reasonable. See, Vapnek,
P., et. al, California Practice Guide: Professional Responsibility
(The Rutter Group 2000) §5:561.
(4) We do not address the issue of whether a client's request
for additional copies of documents after the attorney has
already given the client one copy is reasonable.
Disclaimer:
This opinion was issued by the Legal Ethics Committee of
the San Diego County Bar Association. It is advisory only
and is not binding upon any member of the SDCBA, any other
member of the State Bar of California, the State Bar of
California or its Board of Governors, or any persons or
tribunals charged with regulatory responsibilities. The
SDCBA, its officers, directors, agents, and the Legal Ethics
Committee members assume no responsibility or liability
in rendering this opinion.
|