Ethics Opinion 242

澳门赌场官网持有客户提供的可能属于第三方财产的文件的道德义务

如果委托人提供的文件可能是其前雇主的财产，澳门赌场官网应该这样做, 应客户要求, return the documents to the client if the client has a plausible claim to ownership of them. As to documents with respect to which the client has no such claim, 澳门赌场官网应将其归还雇主，除非这样做会泄露规则1所保护的机密.6, 在这种情况下，澳门赌场官网必须保存文件，不得允许在违反澳门赌场官网对财产所有人的信义义务的情况下使用文件.

Applicable Rules

• Rule 1.15(物业保管)
• Rule 1.2(e)(代理范围)
• Rule 1.6(信息保密)
• Rule 3.4(a)(对对方及澳门赌场官网的公平)

Inquiry

Inquirer has custody of certain documents provided by the client, including internal company records of Client’s former employer. Some of the documents are originals and some are copies, 且两类文件(原件和副本)中至少部分文件不属于客户, 虽然有些副本可能. The Company knows generally that Client or Inquirer has some documents, but not their identity; it claims they belong to it and wants them back. Client asserts that some are his and has asked Inquirer to return them to Client, not the Company. 客户还希望获得客户提供给询问者的所有文件，以便客户可以使用这些文件撰写一本关于公司的书, 显然是公司不会澳门赌场官网的. The questions are whether Inquirer can return the documents to the Client, 必须交给公司吗, 或者保存在《澳门赌场官方软件》的档案里, and, 如果询问者必须保留文件, 询问者是否可以允许客户访问这些文件，以便他可以使用这些文件来写他的书.

Discussion

询问者的义务最初取决于客户是否对文件的保管或使用有任何合法的要求, an issue of fact and law beyond the Committee’s power to resolve.

In general, Rule 1.15 obliges a lawyer to return a client’s property to the client 应客户要求. Rule 3.4(a)还规定澳门赌场官网不得:
 

(a) Obstruct another party’s access to evidence or alter, 销毁或隐瞒证据, 或建议或协助他人这样做, 如果澳门赌场官网合理地知道证据在任何未决或即将发生的诉讼中是或可能是发现或传讯的主题. 除非法律禁止, a lawyer may receive physical evidence of any kind from the client or from another person. If the evidence received by the lawyer belongs to anyone other than the client, the lawyer shall make a good faith effort to preserve it and return it to the owner, subject to Rule 1.6. . . . [Emphasis added.]¹

当证据“属于谁”不明时，《澳门赌场官方软件》并未规定澳门赌场官网的义务.评论一般是指“(a)款关于将财产归还其合法所有人的要求”. . . .” Rule 3.4 Comment [3].

评论[7]补充说:

. . . 如果证据明显不属于委托人的财产，澳门赌场官网不得保留证据或者将证据退还给委托人. Instead, the lawyer must, under paragraph (a), make a good faith effort to return the evidence to its owner.

然而，评论[5]补充道:
因为规则1规定的保密义务.6, 澳门赌场官网通常被禁止在咨询后未经客户同意的情况下主动提供从客户那里获得的物证信息. In some cases, the Office of Bar Counsel will accept physical evidence from a lawyer and then turn it over to the appropriate persons; in those cases this procedure is usually the best means of delivering evidence to the proper authorities without disclosing the client’s confidences. . . .²

On the facts stated, 我们假定向本公司披露副本将构成对规则1中这些条款的广义定义范围内的客户机密或秘密的披露.6, 其中包括“客户要求保持其在专业关系中获得的信息不受侵犯”, 否则泄露出来会很尴尬, 或者可能是有害的, to the client.”³ If Rule 1.6 and the need for client consent preclude referral of the copies to Bar Counsel, and given Client’s assertion of rights to the papers, 我们认为规则1的义务.6 and 1.只要客户对文件的所有权有合理的主张，就要求澳门赌场官网遵守客户的要求，将文件归还给客户. Although here it appears that Client desires to preserve the papers, 而不是摧毁它们, the lawyer should appropriately advise as to Client’s legal obligations concerning preservation, disclosure, 以及副本的使用, 鉴于公司相互竞争的索赔要求.⁴

As to papers for which the Client has no plausible claim of ownership, while Rule 1.6 may preclude return of the documents to the company, it would not preclude the Inquirer from “preserv[ing]” them. Accordingly, retaining custody would be the proper course of conduct, 将来的处置由法院命令或当事人的协议来管理或指导.

Where the lawyer retains custody of the documents, other rules are implicated. Rule 1.15(a)规定拥有客户或第三人财产的澳门赌场官网有义务将其财产与澳门赌场官网的财产分开持有. Rule 1.15(b)进一步规定:

Upon receiving funds or other property in which a client or third person has an interest, a lawyer shall promptly notify the client or third person. Except as stated in this Rule or otherwise permitted by law or by agreement with the client, 澳门赌场官网应当及时向委托人或者第三人交付委托人或者第三人有权收受的款项或者其他财产, 应客户或第三方要求, shall promptly render a full accounting regarding such property, subject to Rule 1.6.

 目前尚不清楚规则1如何.如果有的话，15条应该适用于此. Comment [7] states: “With respect to property that constitutes evidence, 如犯罪的工具或收益, see Rule 3.4(a).这表明规则3.4 should govern when the property consists of “evidence,“至少在与规则1冲突的情况下.15. In this case, however, it is not clear whether all of the documents in question would be deemed “evidence” under Rule 3.4, rather than mere third-party property under Rule 1.15. To the extent that there is a difference between the categories and rules, 它似乎更多地涉及调查者对政府或法院就“证据”负有的义务,，而对财产所属第三人的义务，无论是否为“证据”，均可视为基本相同.”

The final clause, subjecting the obligations of Rule 1.15 to Rule 1.6, 字面上只适用于交货和会计责任，而不适用于第一句的通知责任. 在这种情况下，询问者可以在不违反规则1的情况下遵守广义通知义务.6, so long as Inquirer is not obliged to identify the particular documents. As previously noted, the Client’s former employer is aware that Client or Inquirer has some documents, 但不知道是哪个，也不知道有多少, so that giving general notice might not itself require a disclosure contrary to Rule 1.6. 这是一个我们无法解决的事实问题.

规则1的要求.15(b)向第三方“及时交付”该第三方“有权获得的”任何“资金或其他财产”,” and upon request of that person to “promptly render a full account,都要遵守规则1.6. 在某种程度上，这种会计将需要披露受规则1保护的信息.6, 不需要满足这些要求, for the reasons noted in connection with the discussion of Rule 3.第4条及其对规则1的类似提及.6.

Rule 1.15及其评论阐明了询问者是否可以保管属于公司的文件，但允许客户查阅这些文件以用于撰写其书籍的问题. 评论[1]开头写道:“澳门赌场官网应该以专业受托人的谨慎态度保管他人的财产.评论[4]阐述道:

Third parties, 比如客户的债权人, may have just claims against funds or other property in a lawyer’s custody. 根据适用法律，澳门赌场官网可能有义务保护此类第三方索赔不受客户的不当干涉, and accordingly may refuse to surrender the property to the client. However, 澳门赌场官网不得单方承担委托人与第三方之间争议的仲裁责任.

此外，根据规则1.2(e), if a lawyer knows that what the client proposes to do is “criminal or fraudulent,澳门赌场官网不得“协助”委托人.

允许客户将询问者保管的公司文件用于一本关于公司的书，可能会违反询问者的信义义务. Similarly, 询问者与客户的合作可能使询问者受到非法干涉的指控, or participation in the Client’s possible breach of fiduciary obligations, 以及可能的侵权责任.⁵ However, 这些是法律问题，而不是道德问题, 因此不属于委员会的管辖范围.

Inquiry No. 92-10-38
通过:1993年9月21日

1. Rule 3.4(a)一般基于规则3.《美国澳门赌场官网协会示范规则》第4(a)条规定:
A lawyer shall not:
(a) unlawfully obstruct another party’s access to evidence or unlawfully alter, destroy or conceal a document or other material having potential evidentiary value. A lawyer shall not counsel or assist another person to do any such act. . . .
D .的斜体条款.C. 规则34(a)不包含在ABA示范规则中, they and opinions construing them provide little guidance here.
2. The additional comments are directed primarily to concerns about alteration, destruction or concealment of evidence 2 in the face of pending or imminent process, rather than competing claims of ownership or rights to use and disclose.
3. Cf. Dean v. Dean, 607 So. 2d 494 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992).
4. 我们不需要讨论如果澳门赌场官网从客户以外的人那里获得副本将会出现的情况. 比较壳牌石油., 143 F.R.D. 105 (E.D. La.), as amended, 144 F.R.D. 73 (E.D. La. 1992).
5. Cf. GTE Prods. Corp. v. Steward, 414 Mass. 721, 610 N.E.2d 892 (1993).