Evaluating Document Retention When Moving
For many firms, part of moving involves streamlining materials, updating document retention protocols, and even disposing of files or equipment that are no longer needed. But a move also could implicate the firm's obligations to retain or destroy documents and client files.
June 07, 2017 at 08:20 AM
6 minute read
As the law firm community rebounds from the Great Recession, many firms across the country are rethinking their office spaces. Moving offices makes a lot of sense for several reasons, including changing geography, reducing overhead, and seeking an environment that fosters an efficient and collaborative approach to practicing law. As a result, some firms are exploring more modern, open offices. Others seek to consolidate space and procure a less expensive lease.
For many firms, part of moving involves streamlining materials, updating document retention protocols, and even disposing of files or equipment that are no longer needed. But a move also could implicate the firm's obligations to retain or destroy documents and client files. Attorneys and law firms on the move can take steps to reduce these risks, as described below.
|Duties Under California Rules of Professional Conduct
When evaluating any ethical or professional obligation, the usual place to start is with the jurisdiction's rules that regulate the issue at hand. The California Rules of Professional Conduct shed some light on an attorney's obligations to retain or remit files after the termination of an attorney-client relationship. An attorney must, “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,” Rule 3-700; see also Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 6068(n). Rule 3-700 further clarifies that this obligation includes all “items reasonably necessary to the client's representation, whether the client has paid for them or not.”
If documents needed to protect client interests have been destroyed, the law firm not only limits its ability to use the file to defend against any potential legal malpractice claim, but could open itself to a potential bar grievance for failing to take the steps necessary to surrender papers and property to which the client is entitled.
|California State Bar's Guidance
The California State Bar has offered additional guidance for firms deciding whether to store or destroy old client documents. In Formal Opinion No. 2001-157, the bar noted that attorneys are required to protect the confidentiality of client files, including any fee agreements, pursuant to Bus. & Prof. Code, Sections 6068, subd. (e), 6149.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLawyers Drowning in Cases Are Embracing AI Fastest—and Say It's Yielding Better Outcomes for Clients
Why ACLU's New Legal Director Says It's a 'Good Time to Take the Reins'
Mary O'Carroll on Her Move to Goodwin: Law Firms Are at the Heart of Industry Disruption
Trending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250