Question: Lawyer is getting ready to file a pleading, but Lawyer is unsure what to redact as required by Missouri Supreme Court Operating Rule 2.02, related Missouri Supreme Court Rules, and Missouri statutes, or other law, hereinafter referred to collectively as “redaction requirements.” May Lawyer simply redact the text of the pleading after the caption to ensure compliance? Lawyer states that Lawyer does not have time to determine what needs to be redacted, and Lawyer does not want to run afoul of the redaction requirements. Lawyer states that Lawyer thinks that redacting everything is the safest way to comply.

Answer: No, Lawyer may not simply redact the text of the pleading after the caption to ensure compliance because Rule 4-1.1 on competence requires Lawyer to take steps to determine how to appropriately comply with the redaction requirements. Pursuant to Rule 5.30(c), this office may only provide informal opinions regarding a lawyer’s prospective conduct pursuant to Rules 4, 5, and 6. This office cannot interpret other Rules or law, including the redaction requirements, nor can it provide legal advice. However, compliance with the redaction requirements is certainly part of a lawyer’s responsibilities pursuant to Rule 4, the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct.
Rule 4-3.4 provides that “[a] lawyer shall not:…(c) knowingly disobey an obligation under the rules of a tribunal, except for an open refusal based on an assertion that no valid obligation exists….” Comment [4] to Rule 4-3.4 states that “[l]awyers have an ethical duty to comply with court orders in both their professional and personal capacities.” The redaction requirements are Rules of the Court which must be followed by lawyers. Further, Rule 4-4.4(a), requires a lawyer in representing a client to respect the rights of third persons, so Lawyer must also consider if the information in question relates to a third person, such as an opposing party or witness, and whether that information will “embarrass, delay, or burden a third person or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.” See also Rule 4-4.4(a), Comment [1] and Informal Opinion 2021-13. If Lawyer puts information regarding an opposing party, witness, or third person that should be redacted into a public filing, Lawyer may violate Rule 4-4.4(a), but that is certainly not a justification for disregarding the redaction rules by simply redacting everything. Unless Lawyer has a meritorious claim or contention in accordance with Rule 4-3.1, meaning that Lawyer has “a basis in law or fact for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification, or reversal of existing law[,]” Lawyer would violate Rule 4-3.4(c) by simply failing to attempt to comply with the redaction requirements. Lawyer would also violate Rule 4-1.1 by failing to comply with the competency requirements of representing a client. As part of a duty of competency to represent a client pursuant to Rule 4-1.1, Lawyer should understand how to use Missouri’s e-filing system, Case.net, including proper selection of the type of document being filed and the security setting for that document. Additionally, Lawyer should understand what is required to be redacted as a matter of law as part of the duty of competence pursuant to Rule 4-1.1. Finally, Lawyer’s proposed conduct would also violate Rule 4-8.4(a) by violating or attempting to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, and Rule 4-8.4(d) by engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

Informal Opinions are ethics advisory opinions issued by the Office of Legal Ethics Counsel to members of the Bar about Rule 4 (Rules of Professional Conduct), Rule 5 (Complaints and Proceedings Thereon), and Rule 6 (Fees to Practice Law) pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 5.30(c). Written summaries of select Informal Opinions are published for informational purposes as determined by the Advisory Committee of the Supreme Court of Missouri pursuant to Rule 5.30(c). Informal opinion summaries are advisory in nature and are not binding. These opinions are published as an educational service and do not constitute legal advice.

To request an Informal Opinion, please visit: https://mo-legal-ethics.org/for lawyers/requesting-an-informal-advisory-opinion/.

© Copyright 2024