The ABA/BNA Lawyers’ Manual on Professional Conduct™ is a trusted resource that helps attorneys understand cases and decisions that directly impacts their work, practice ethically, and...
Cruz v. Dollar Tree Stores Inc., N.D. Cal., No. 07-04012-SC, 5/16/12
Key Holding: A California ethics rule that requires lawyers to keep records of client property for five years after litigation ends does not permit a lawyer to retain copies of confidential materials produced by the opposing party under a protective order.
Potential Impact: Indicates limits of what kinds of client “properties” an attorney is ethically required to keep, and thwarts effort to expand it to include opponent's protected documents.
By Samson Habte
California ethics rules dealing with preservation of client files and property at the conclusion of a case do not allow, much less require, an attorney to retain confidential documents produced in discovery by an opposing party, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California declared May 16 (Cruz v. Dollar Tree Stores Inc., N.D. Cal., No. 07-04012-SC, 5/16/12).
The court's interpretation came in the context of a motion to enforce a protective order filed by a defendant which complained that plaintiffs' counsel refused to return confidential discovery documents that the court ordered him to return after the lawsuit was dismissed.
The attorney for the plaintiffs--a group of Dollar Tree Stores managers who brought a wage-and-hour class action against their employer--argued that he was ethically obligated to keep electronic copies of the defendant's confidential documents, despite the court's order that he return them.
He maintained that California Rule of Professional Conduct 4-100(B)(3), which is similar to ABA Model Rule 1.15(a), required him to retain an archival electronic copy of the files for at least five years.
Judge Samuel Conti was unconvinced. He ordered the materials returned and stated that plaintiffs' counsel's reading of Rule 4-100(B)(3) “strains credulity.”
Rule 4-100(B)(3) requires California lawyers to maintain and preserve “complete records of all funds, securities, and other properties of a client” for at least “five years after final appropriate distribution of such funds or properties.”
Plaintiffs' counsel argued that the term “other properties of a client” includes “all client files as well as confidential documents produced by an opposing party through discovery.”
That reading of the ethics rules is far too broad, the court ruled. Conti found no support for it in case law, and said counsel's interpretation conflicted with the plain language of Rule 4-100 as well as the structure, scheme, and organization of the California rules. Such a reading also would discourage the private resolution of discovery disputes, the court said.
“[I]t strains credulity to suggest that another party's confidential materials become the property of a client when they are produced in discovery pursuant to a protective order,” Conti wrote.
Plaintiffs' counsel's reading of Rule 4-100(B)(3) was based on two court decisions that Conti said could arguably be read as standing for the proposition that “the client file, particularly attorney work product, may be considered the property of the client.”
Although those cases “may have expanded” the “scope of a client's property under Rule 4-100(B)(3) … to include attorney work product,” Conti said, there appeared to be no authority that “further broadened the rule so as to encompass the confidential information disclosed by an opposing party through discovery.”
Nor did a close reading of Rule 4-100(B)(3) support plaintiffs' counsel's broad interpretation, the court continued. The provision is found in a chapter of the California professional conduct rules that pertains to “financial relationships with clients,” the court noted. This structure, Conti said, indicates that Rule 4-100(B)(3) “deals primarily with preserving the identity of funds and other property held in trust for a client.”
Moreover, Conti observed that accepting plaintiffs' counsel's interpretation of Rule 4-100 would create a direct contradiction with California Rule 3-700(D). That provision, somewhat analogous to ABA Model Rule 1.16(d), states that upon termination of employment an attorney shall, “[s]ubject to any protective order or non-disclosure agreement, promptly release to the client … all client papers and property.”
In other words, Conti said, because Rule 3-700(D) provides that an attorney is not required to provide a client with confidential material that is subject to a protective order, it would make little sense to find that an attorney is obligated to retain materials that a client is not even entitled to receive.
Counsel's expansive gloss on Rule 4-100 also would have negative policy implications, the court said. “[R]eading Rule 4-100 so broadly would hamper the private resolution of discovery disputes,” Conti wrote. “Parties might be unwilling to … disclose confidential documents if they know that those documents could be retained by opposing counsel indefinitely,” he stated.
Although the court rejected plaintiffs' counsel's arguments, it declined a request that he be ordered to pay the defendant's attorneys' fees for bringing the motion to enforce the protective order.
“Plaintiffs' counsel retained an electronic archive of Dollar Tree's confidential information because [he] believed [he] had an ethical obligation to do so,” Conti said. “While this position was overly cautious and ultimately incorrect, there is no indication that it was taken in bad faith.”
Scott E. Cole of Scott Cole & Associates, Oakland, Cal., represented the plaintiffs.
Lead counsel for Dollar Tree were Alexander Hernaez of Fox Rothschild, San Francisco; Matthew P. Vandall of Littler Mendelson, San Francisco; Robert D. Links of Slote & Links, San Francisco; and Rossana S. Eltanal of Littler Mendelson in Phoenix.
Full text at http://op.bna.com/mopc.nsf/r?Open=kswn-8ucrhd.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)