道德意见230

Assertion of 保留留置权s; Preservation of Confidences and Secrets of Trust Client in Dispute Between Former Co-trustee and Successor Trust

1991年1月生效，规则1.第8(i)条禁止澳博app对其占有的客户财产主张留置权. 委托人要求在1月以后归还其财产的澳博app, 即使澳博app对财产的留置权的最初主张发生在1月之前，1991年必须归还财产, 因此在哥伦比亚特区职业责任法典下是恰当的.

An attorney to a trust may not disclose confidential communications to a former trustee, 不顾现任理事的反对, 规则1允许的情况除外.6.

适用的规则

• 1.16(d)(终止代理)
• 1.8(i)(客户文件的保留)
• 1.6 (Preservation of 客户的机密和秘密)

调查

在12月, 1988, 询问者是由两位共同受托人之一(“受托人A”)聘请的，代表位于哥伦比亚特区以外的信托. Inquirer served as counsel for the trust at the closing of a sale of real property, 并且是担保延期购买资金信托契约的本票的共同受托人. Inquirer delivered copies of the closing documents, copies of two deferred purchase money promissory notes for $1.500万美元和100美元,000, 还有一份150美元的副本,该信托的另一共同受托人(“受托人B”).

1989年初, 在会见信托调解人之后, Inquirer concluded that he could no longer represent the trust. 询问者口头通知信托调解人以及受托人A和受托人B他打算退出, 并以书面形式确认了这一决定. Inquirer took appropriate steps to withdraw from all matters on behalf of the trust, 包括请求哥伦比亚特区高等法院允许他在其他三个未决诉讼中退出信托澳博app的身份，并起草必要的文件，以便根据房地产交易信托契约的担保说明，解除他作为受托人的身份.

费用 of approximately $14,000 due to the Inquirer remained unpaid by the trust. Inquirer asserted a lien against the client's files, including the original of the promissory notes and the letter of credit, and has refused several requests to turn over the files, pending satisfactory arrangements for payment. The most recent request for the files was made in January, 1992.

In June, 1991, Trustee B sought judicial instructions with respect to payment of $76,624.16 in legal fees due to five law firms, including Inquirer. Settlors of the trust then filed suit against Trustee B, claiming that Trustee B had breached its fiduciary duties, 招致未经授权的法律费用, 信托资产管理不善, 滥用信托基金.

显然是在受托人B向法院寻求支付法律费用的指示之后, the settlors terminated the trust and created a second trust, under which Trustee A and the settlors serve as co-trustees. The settlors assigned all of the assets of the initial rust to the successor trust.

受托人B已告知询问者，他的证词可能会在未决诉讼中被采纳, 并相信受托人A在专业关系过程中向询问者披露的信息对受托人B不构成机密. 受托人A不同意.

讨论

保留留置权
调查提出的第一个问题是，在所提出的情况下，留置权的主张是否恰当. 直到1月1日, 1991, 询问者根据《澳博app》主张留置权的适当性是明确的，没有任何严重的争议.¹

The District of Columbia 职业行为准则 are no less clear, 但需要一个相反的结论:

In connection with any termination of representation, 澳博app应当在合理可行的范围内及时采取措施保护委托人的利益, such as giving reasonable notice to the client, allowing time for employment of other counsel, surrendering papers and property to which the client is entitled, and refunding any advance payment of fee that has not been earned. The lawyer may retain papers relating to the client to the extent permitted by 规则1.8(i).

调查显示，没有根据得出该客户没有“有权”获得其所拥有的文件和财产的结论, except his retaining lien arising from the client's failure to pay his fee.²

关于留置权，规则1.8(i)是明确的:

A lawyer shall not impose a lien upon any part of a client's files, 除了澳博app自己的工作成果, and then only to the extent that the work product has not been paid for. This work product exception shall not apply when the client has become unable to pay, 或者扣留澳博app的工作成果会给客户带来无法弥补的伤害的重大风险.

规则1的注释.8(i)强调其目的只是对规则1所述的一般规则造成一个“狭隘的例外”.16(d), 哪条“要求澳博app在客户代理终止时交出客户有权获得的文件和财产?.规则1.评论[8]. "Only the lawyer's own work product—results of factual investigations, 法律研究与分析, and similar materials generated by the lawyer's own effort—could be retained,规则1.8、评论[9], 前提是客户有能力支付而且不会面临牢狱之灾或其他严重且无法弥补的伤害, 规则1.8、评论[10].³

因此, 不质疑询问者根据《澳博app下载网》的规定最初主张留置权的适当性, we conclude that the District of Columbia 职业行为准则, 自1月1日起生效, 1991, prohibit the refusal to turn over the original promissory notes and letter of credit, as well as any other documents in the file that are not Inquirer's work product, 作为对一月后的回应, 前客户1991年的请求. 规则1.8、评论[9].⁴

客户的机密和秘密

The second question raised by the inquiry is whether 规则1.6禁止向受托人B披露受托人A和询问者之间的通信, over the objection of Trustee B's successor Trustees. Inquirer was counsel to the Trust, and not to the individual Trustees. 我们假定，转移给继承人信托的“资产”包括主张任何特权要求的权利. See generally Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. 温特劳布, 471 U.S. 343, 348-58 (1985). 相应的, 询问者对信托负有义务, 他只有在得到客户或其继任者同意的情况下才能披露这些通信, 通过其授权代理人行事.

我们假定受托人B有权知道受托人B作为信托的共同受托人期间向询问者所说的内容. 调解人终止了最初的信托, effectively removing Trustee B as a trustee for the trust, 因此终止了受托人B要求披露询问者与通过受托人A行事的信托之间的特权通信的任何权力.

Without the consent of the successor trust, Inquirer may not disclose the confidences or secrets of his former client, except in the circumstances described in 规则1.6 (d), none of which appears applicable here.

调查没有. 92-6-14
通过:1992年9月15日

1. 见规则5-103(A), District of Columbia Code of Professional Responsibility; Opinion 59 (undated); Opinion 90 (1980). 一般见第107号意见. 27, 1981); Opinion 103 (1981). 事实上, 本委员会副主席在9月14日的信函中确认了询问者根据《澳博app下载网》主张留置权的适当性, 1989, and again by Assistant 酒吧 Counsel in October 2, 1990, 驳回对询问者就其保留有关档案而提出的投诉.
2. The order of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 《澳博app》规定，“对于1月1日前发生的行为, 1991, 在有关行为发生之日有效的《澳博app》的规定是本院作出裁决的指导规则, 专业责任委员会, 其听证委员会, 和澳博app澳博app.订单号. m - 165 - 88(3月. 1, 1990). 这里的“有问题的行为”是澳博app拒绝交出文件，以回应他的客户在1月后提出的要求, 1991请求. 相应的, the Code of Professional Responsibility is not applicable.
3. The so-called Jordan Committee specifically rejected the ABA’s proposed Model 规则1.8(j), 会继续普遍批准《澳博app》所表达的保留留置权吗, 并以规则1的措词代替.8(i)上文所述. Comments [9] and [10], which broadly construe 规则1.16 and emphasize the limited reach of 规则1.8(i), were added by the 董事会 of Governors of the District of Columbia 酒吧.
4. The inquiry does not suggest any facts indicating that the client is unable to pay, 而不是不情愿. 也没有任何迹象表明这位前客户面临任何无法弥补的伤害风险.