Expert Opinion

Cleaning House: What to Keep and What to Chuck?

Considering the number of us who are approaching the magic age at which we have to address these issues, file management and destruction promises to be a growth business.

July 11, 2019 at 01:35 PM

5 minute read


Mark Dubois Mark Dubois

An important issue to consider for lawyers thinking of winding up a law practice is what to do with the old files. Many speakers at law office management seminars suggest that attorneys and firms develop guidelines and policies to prevent the problem of a retired, disabled, disappeared or dead lawyer leaving thousands of files for her or his successors, heirs or assigns to deal with. But it's a policy often honored more in the breach than the observance.

Assuming, however, that you suck it up and decide to finally dig into the archives and start to reduce the volume, what do you give back, what do you keep and what do you chuck? I think there are four considerations.

The Connecticut Bar Association has a pretty good publication which can be found here. There are seven guidelines with excellent commentary:

Guideline 1. Notwithstanding any of the other policies set forth below, the retention or destruction of documents may be determined by written agreement between the attorney and the client.

Guideline 2. A copy of a document need not be kept after the original has been returned to the client or other owner.

Guideline 3. All documents shall be kept seven years from the date of completion of services rendered by an attorney.

Guideline 4. All original documents signed by the client and documents conferring or imposing legal rights or obligations shall be kept seven years from the date of such signing or the cessation of such rights or obligations, whichever is longer. No such document shall be destroyed until the client or owner is mailed written notice at least 30 days before destruction of the document.

Guideline 5. Documents may be copied and retained in any medium which accurately depicts the original document and from which accurate copies can be made. The originals of any documents so copied, other than those documents set forth in paragraph 4 above, need not be kept after their copying.

Guideline 6. Any document which is kept as a permanent public record need not be kept after its recording. No such document shall be destroyed until the client or owner of the document is mailed written notice at least 30 days before destruction of the document.

Guideline 7. Subject to the above guidelines, upon termination of practice, any documents still being retained by the attorney should be returned to the client or the client notified of any successor attorney agreeing to take upon the obligations of retaining those documents.

Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15(j) also contains a list of materials that must be kept for seven years, mostly related to the financial aspects of client representation and IOLTA account management. Remember that as long as you have an active IOLTA account listed on your attorney registration, you will be subject to a random audit. Sometimes these audits force you to go back much longer than seven years to trace the source or ownership of surplus funds in the account, so you should balance, reconcile and clean up the account, or keep the records required to do so.

The last line of the CBA guidelines warns that you should also segregate “any files that may pose future problems for the retiring lawyer.” These could be matters in which there is a possibility of a malpractice claim or matters in which you might expect to have a grievance filed against you. While the statute of repose for malpractice cases is three years (from date of conduct, not discovery), the limitation for grievances is six years. That's not a hard-and-fast rule, as there is also a provision for a one-year statute running from the date of discovery for certain rules, including those dealing with fiduciary conduct and the Rule 8 catchall rules, as well as a few other special circumstances.

The final consideration, and one I really don't have a good answer for, is how long you should keep records in cases in which you might later have to answer questions. For instance, in contested cases, an attorney can be compelled to testify as to discussions that led to the creation of testamentary documents. Contemporary notes, drafts and other such materials may be the only way you can refresh your recollection and give good evidence. I'm not sure what the standard of care or best practice is in such cases or whether you might be exposed to claims if you failed to retain enough materials to be a competent witness, but it's something to think about if some part of your practice involves such work.

Considering the number of us who are approaching the magic age at which we have to address these issues, file management and destruction promises to be a growth business.

Mark Dubois is on sabbatical. He remains of counsel at Geraghty & Bonnano, where he can be reached at [email protected].

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Go To Lexis →

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Go To Bloomberg Law →

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

NOT FOR REPRINT

Latest
Trending

Who Got The Work

J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.

Read More

Who Got The Work

Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.

Read More

Who Got The Work

Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.

Read More

Who Got The Work

Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.

Read More

Who Got The Work

Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.

Read More

Law.com Pro

    More from ALM

    Resources