051215 AKEO, 2015-2

• Case Date: May 12, 2015
• Court: Alaska

2015-2 Ethics Opinion No. 2015-2 Alaska Ethics Opinions Alaska Bar Association May 12, 2015           Approved by the Alaska Bar Association Ethics Committee on May 7, 2015.          Does a Lawyer Have an Obligation to Hold Client Documents or Property Delivered to the Lawyer Unsolicited?          Question Presented:          Does a lawyer have an obligation to hold documents or property that a client has delivered to a lawyer unsolicited?          Conclusion:          Generally a lawyer does not have a responsibility to hold documents or property that a client has delivered unsolicited and that are not in connection with the representation, however the Ethics Committee recommends treating such items as abandoned property and following the guidelines set forth in Alaska Ethics Opinion 90-3.          Discussion:          The safekeeping of client and third party property is governed by Alaska Rule of Professional Conduct 1.15. Although this rule is usually relied upon when discussing client funds and trust accounts, it also covers situations in which a client has left “other property” with the attorney. A lawyer has no obligation to accept or agree to accept any client property, but once he or she does, the Rule 1.15 obligations are triggered. Thus one way to avoid the application of the duties described below is to refuse to hold the items of property in question. Sometimes, however, a client or a third party such as a family member may simply leave items at the front door or front desk of the lawyer’s office. This opinion is intended to address that scenario.          There are two threshold issues to consider. First, Rule 1.15(a) states that “[a] lawyer shall hold property of clients or third persons that is in a lawyer’s possession in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer’s own property.” (Emphasis added.) The key here is whether the items were in connection with a representation. If they are simply personal effects such as clothes with no relationship to the representation, then there is no basis for a duty to arise with respect to that property.          The second issue is consent. Should the lawyer willingly accept that property, regardless of the relationship to the representation, then he or she has consented and takes on the duties of a fiduciary with respect to that property and the duties under Alaska Statute 34.45.220 may apply. The comments to Rule 1.15 state very clearly...