Transactions with Non-Clients · 2-8% of the exam
17.1.2Third Persons and Inadvertently Sent Documents or Information (Rule 4.4)
Quick review — Rule 4.4 (third persons and inadvertently sent documents or information) (taught fully in Chapter 14)
Two prongs, and two notes on how far they reach.
- 4.4(a): a lawyer may not use means with no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, nor methods of obtaining evidence that violate a third person's legal rights.
- 4.4(b): on receiving a document or ESI the lawyer knows or reasonably should know was inadvertently sent, the lawyer must promptly notify the sender — that is the complete Model Rule duty.
- Return, destruction, and sequestration are not required; privilege-waiver questions go to the court — whether to return or destroy the document is allocated by Comment [3] (Chapter 14).
- The "reasonably should know" standard is objective; misdirected address plus a privilege label puts a reasonable lawyer on notice immediately, and delay of days isn't prompt.
Where the neighboring rules are taught: witness contact and payment under Rule 3.4, ex parte contact with judges under Rule 3.5, and juror contact before, during and after trial are taught fully in Chapter 14; trial publicity and the right of reply under Rule 3.6 in Chapter 15; contact with represented persons and an organization's constituents under Rule 4.2 in Chapter 16; and statements about judges under Rule 8.2 in Chapter 22.
Questions · 4
Q 01ch17-e04
Question 1 of 4 · Rule 4.4
Attorney represented Defendant in a contract dispute. An assistant at opposing counsel's office emailed Attorney a spreadsheet of settlement authority figures that was plainly meant for opposing counsel's own client. The covering message was addressed to that client and the file carried a privilege label. Attorney recognized the mistake within minutes of opening the message and telephoned opposing counsel the same morning, describing what had arrived and saying the file would be left alone pending instructions. Opposing counsel then demanded that Attorney delete every copy and confirm the deletion in writing, and threatened a bar complaint otherwise. Must Attorney delete the spreadsheet?
Keys 1 to 4 choose.