2024-08 | Office of Legal Ethics Counsel & Advisory Committee of the Supreme Court of Missouri



Informal Opinion Number: 2024-08

Adoption Date: April 25, 2024

Rules: 4–3.1, 4–3.4, 4–4.4; Court Operating Rule 2.02

Advocate; Transactions with Persons Other Than Clients

Meritorious Claims and Contentions; Duties to Opposing Party and Counsel and Ethical Obligation to Follow Court Orders and Rules; Respect for Rights of Third Persons

Subject: Misconduct - Conduct Prejudicial to the Administration of Justice; Redaction; Respect for Rights of Third Persons

Summary: redaction by lawyer when meritorious claim or contention information is subject to redaction requirements

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.” Lawyer has complied with the redaction requirements but is unsure as to whether a certain piece of information contained in the pleading is required to be redacted. Lawyer has a good faith basis in law to believe that information is protected by law and subject to redaction. Lawyer asks if Lawyer may ethically redact the piece of information in question and let the court make a determination as to whether Lawyer is correct.

Answer: Yes, Lawyer may ethically redact a piece of information Lawyer has a good faith basis of fact or law to believe is subject to the redaction requirements. In doing so, Lawyer must ensure that Lawyer meets the standards of Rule 4 dash–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[,]” as to why such information is subject to the redaction requirements. If Lawyer does so, Lawyer will fulfill the obligation of Rule 4 dash–3.4(c) on compliance with rules of a tribunal, as well as Rule 4 dash–4.4(a) addressing a lawyer’s responsibility in representing a client to respect the rights of third persons if the information in question relates to an opposing party, witness, or other third person. See also Rule 4 dash–4.4(a), Comment [1] and Informal Opinion 2021 dash–13.

It is important to note that 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.

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.

Request an Informal Opinion.