Ethics: 11 new informal advisory opinion summaries published

As determined by the Advisory Committee to the Supreme Court of Missouri, 11 new informal opinion summaries have been published since the last publication of informal opinions in this Journal of The Missouri Bar in September/October 2025. 

Pursuant to Rule 5.30, written summaries of select informal opinions are published for informational purposes as determined by the Advisory Committee. Informal opinion summaries are advisory in nature and are not binding. The first four digits of the opinion summary number indicate the year the opinion was issued. The full text of lawyers’ requests and the Legal Ethics Counsel’s responses are confidential. Informal advisory opinions are issued by the Legal Ethics Counsel pursuant to Missouri Supreme Court Rule 5.30. The Legal Ethics Counsel issues opinions to members of the bar about Rules 4, 5, and 6 for prospective guidance about a lawyer’s own conduct involving an existing set of facts. 

Informal advisory opinions will not be issued about past conduct, hypothetical scenarios, or the conduct of a lawyer’s other than the one asking for the opinion. 

For a searchable database and information about requesting an informal opinion, go to www.mo-legal-ethics.org, click “For Lawyers,” and choose “Informal Advisory Opinions.”

2026-01 

Publication date: April 21, 2026 

Rules: 4-1.7 and 4-1.16 

Summary: representation of both driver and passenger in car accident when passenger has previously settled with driver’s insurer, withdrawal if common representation fails 

Question: Lawyer currently represents a minor, via a next-of-friend, who was a passenger in an automobile accident. The minor was riding with a family member when the accident occurred. A semi-truck passed the center line and struck the family’s car. The driver was killed in the accident and the minor suffered serious injuries. Lawyer filed suit against the driver’s estate, the truck driver, and the trucking company. Lawyer dismissed the driver’s estate from the lawsuit after the driver’s liability insurance paid the policy limits to the minor. Is it a waivable conflict of interest if Lawyer intervenes on behalf of driver’s spouse asserting a wrongful death claim in the minor’s lawsuit against the truck driver and the trucking company? Lawyer expects opposing counsel to assert that the driver was partially at fault for the accident by exceeding the speed limit. 

Answer: Rule 4-1.7(a)(1) and (2) provide that a concurrent conflict exists if: (1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or (2) there is a significant risk that the representation will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to other clients. Rule 4-1.7(b) allows representation of clients with concurrent conflicts if: (1) the lawyer reasonably believes the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client; (2) the representation is not prohibited by law; (3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client in the same litigation; and (4) each client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing. 

In most scenarios, Rule 4-1.7(a)(1) and (2) prohibit joint representation of a driver and the driver’s passengers when a third-party tortfeasor brings a valid claim of fault against the driver. It is considered a nonconsentable conflict of interest. This is because the lawyer would not be able to provide competent representation to the passengers without asserting a claim against the driver thereby compromising the representation. The lawyer’s duty of loyalty to the driver prevents the lawyer from making such claim. See Comment [15] to Rule 4-1.7 and Informal Opinion 950246. 

The fact-scenario presented here is different in that the passenger has settled and dismissed passenger’s claim against the driver, before the driver’s spouse sought the Lawyer’s representation. As a result, the spouse’s interest and the minor/ passenger’s interests may now be materially aligned, i.e., both the spouse and minor will want to minimize the level of fault attributed to the driver. If the driver and the next-of-friend are willing to give informed consent, confirmed in writing, to the representation, the conflict could be waived. See Informal Opinions 940053 and 950246. However, if at any point the clients’ positions diverge in a nonconsentable, material way, Lawyer will have to withdraw from representing all parties. See Rule 4-1.16, Comments [4] and [29] to Rule 4-1.7, and Informal Opinion 2021-04. 

2026-02 

Publication date: April 21, 2026 

Rules: Rule 4-4.2 

Summary: communication with represented party when lawyer is a party to the dispute 

Question: Lawyer is divorcing Spouse. Lawyer is pro se in the dissolution. Spouse is represented by counsel. Lawyer and Spouse had reached an informal agreement about the division of property before filing the dissolution action. Lawyer and Spouse continue to reside together while the dissolution is ongoing. Spouse discussed with Lawyer repairs needed at the marital home and payment for the repairs. Spouse initiated the conversation. After Lawyer spoke with Spouse regarding the repairs, Spouse’s lawyer advised Lawyer that all communications concerning the dissolution should be made through Spouse’s lawyer. As a party, Lawyer believes Lawyer has a right to communicate directly with spouse. Lawyer bases this belief upon a reading of Rule 4-4.2 and Comment [4] to the Rule. Rule 4-4.2 prohibits a lawyer who “is representing a client” from directly communicating about the subject of the representation with any other represented party. Comment [4] to the Rule provides that parties may communicate directly with each other. 

Is Lawyer correct in the interpretation of the rule and its comment? Is the interpretation the same, regardless of whether Lawyer is pro se or Lawyer has engaged counsel to represent Lawyer? 

Answer one: No, Lawyer’s interpretation is incorrect. Interpretation of the Rule and Comment [4] require consideration of both the Rule’s plain language and the policy purposes behind the Rule. The Rule protects a represented person against overreaching by other lawyers, interference with the client-lawyer relationship, and the uncounseled disclosure of information relating to the representation. See Comment [1] to Rule 4-4.2. Direct communications between a represented party and a pro se lawyer create the same risks that Rule 4-4.2 was designed to prevent. So, the pro se Lawyer is considered “self-representing” or, i.e., “representing a client,” and direct communication with the spouse regarding the dissolution is prohibited. See Informal Opinion 2011-03. This is true even if Spouse initiated or consented to the communication. See Comment [3] to Rule 4-4.2. 

Answer two: The same risks exist with direct communications for the represented party regardless of whether Lawyer is pro se or has counsel. Consequently, Rule 4-4.2 prohibits direct communication between the parties unless counsel for the parties consent to direct communications or the communication is authorized by law or court order. 

2026-03 

Publication date: April 21, 2026 

Rules: 4-1.2, 4-1.6, 4-1.16, 4-3.3 

Summary: action required when lawyer learns client has provided false document in discovery response 

Question: As part of a discovery request, Client produced a copy of a letter Client received from a third party. The letter is relevant to Client’s defense in the underlying lawsuit. Opposing counsel has requested to see the original letter. When Lawyer advised Client of opposing counsel’s request, Client confided to Lawyer that Client had altered the date of the letter on the copy produced. Client wants Lawyer to advise opposing counsel that Client no longer has the original letter. What are Lawyer’s ethical duties? 

Answer: Lawyer cannot refuse opposing counsel’s request to view the original document as this would be assisting Client in Client’s fraudulent conduct. Rule 4-1.2(f) and Comment [9] to the Rule. Because Client’s actions relate to the underlying lawsuit, Lawyer must take reasonable remedial measures to assure candor to the Court . Rule 4-3.3(b); see also Informal Opinions 2020-24 and 2020-25. First, Lawyer should speak confidentially with Client, advise Client of Lawyer’s duty of candor to the Court, and seek Client’s cooperation in the withdrawal or correction of the document. Comment [10] to Rule 4-3.3. If this fails, Lawyer is required to take further action. This includes seeking leave from the Court to withdraw from the representation and disclosing to the Court Client’s actions, even though such would reveal information which is otherwise protected by Rule 4-1.6. Id., Rule 4-3.3(b) and (c), and Rule 4-1.16(a). 

2026-04 

Publication date: April 21, 2026 

Rules: Rule 4-1.6 

Summary: disclosure of the existence of deceased client’s personal injury action to client’s next-of-kin 

Question: Lawyer was representing Client in a personal injury action when Client unexpectedly died from an unrelated matter. No estate has been opened for Client. The engagement agreement between Lawyer and Client does not address the release of confidential information by the Lawyer. May Lawyer contact Client’s next-of-kin to inquire about opening an estate to preserve the personal injury claim? 

Answer: Whether a personal injury claim survives the death of a plaintiff and whether a plaintiff’s estate can be substituted for a deceased plaintiff are substantive issues of law beyond the scope of this opinion. While the attorney-client relationship ceases upon the death of the client, the duty of confidentiality survives. See Rule 4-1.6 and Informal Opinions 20070016, 990146, 950125, 950256, and 940013. Confidential information encompasses all information related to the representation of the client, including information regarding the client’s death and client’s pending legal claims. See Rule 4-1.6, Comments [1] and [3]. Rule 4-1.6 permits disclosure of confidential information if disclosure is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation. See Rule 4-1.6(a). Unless Client explicitly expressed otherwise to Lawyer, Lawyer may reasonably assume that Client would want the estate/heirs to recover for Client’s injuries. Thus, Lawyer may contact Client’s next-of-kin and make a limited disclosure regarding Client’s death and the existence of the lawsuit. This will allow the next-of-kin to consider whether to petition the court to open an estate to preserve the Client’s personal injury claim. 

2026-05 

Publication date: April 21, 2026 

Rules: 4-1.14; 4-1.6; 4-1.7 

Summary: lawyer’s considerations when concerned about diminished capacity of client and possible need for protective action 

Question: Lawyer represents an elderly client on the sale of some real estate. Client is entitled to significant proceeds from the sale. Client does not have any kind of formal diagnosis of dementia or other cognitive decline, but Lawyer has represented Client in the past on other unrelated matters and is now questioning Client’s mental capacity. Client does not have a guardian or conservator, and Lawyer asks if Lawyer is ethically required to provide the full proceeds to Client or if Lawyer is required to take other steps to secure the funds for Client given Client’s perceived mental decline by Lawyer. 

Answer: Lawyer should fully consider whether Client may be in need of protections pursuant to Rule 4-1.14, Client with Diminished Capacity. Rule 4-1.14(a) requires Lawyer to maintain a normal client-lawyer relationship with Client as much as reasonably possible if Client’s capacity to make adequately considered decisions in connection with the representation is diminished because Client may be suffering from a mental impairment or for some other reason. See also Informal Opinions 2020-27, 990095, and 2023-01. Guidance is provided in Comment [1] to Rule 4-1.14 that when a client is properly advised and assisted, there is a normal client-lawyer relationship, but if a client is suffering from a diminished mental capacity such that the client may no longer be able to make legally binding decisions, that relationship can be impacted. 

Rule 4-1.14(b) permits, but does not require, a lawyer to take protective action if the following conditions are met: (1) the lawyer has a reasonable belief that the client has diminished capacity; (2) the client is at risk of substantial physical, financial, or other harm unless action is taken; and (3) the client cannot adequately act in the client’s own interest. If these conditions are satisfied, “the lawyer may take reasonably necessary protective action, including consulting with individuals or entities that have the ability to take action to protect the client and, in appropriate cases, seeking the appointment of a next friend, guardian ad litem, conservator or guardian.” Rule 4-1.14(b). 

In this situation, Lawyer must make a determination as to the condition of Client and whether or not Client is suffering from diminished capacity such that Client cannot adequately act in Client’s interest and is at substantial risk of financial harm as to handling the proceeds of the sale of the real estate. Lawyer should consider that there is a distinction pursuant to Rule 4-1.14 about representing a client with diminished capacity and maintaining the normal client-lawyer relationship versus dealing with a client who may have diminished capacity such that a client cannot make legal decisions and may not be competent as a matter of law, which is beyond the scope of the Rules of Professional Conduct. 

Since Client does not have a guardian or conservator, Lawyer may wish to start with the least restrictive protective measures, which could include: “consulting with family members, using a reconsideration period to permit clarification or improvement of circumstances, using voluntary surrogate decision-making tools such as durable powers of attorney, or consulting with support groups, professional services, adult-protective agencies, or other individuals or entities that have the ability to protect the client. In taking any protective action, the lawyer should be guided by such factors as the wishes and values of the client to the extent known, the client’s best interests, and the goals of intruding into the client’s decision-making autonomy to the least extent feasible, maximizing client capacities and respecting the client’s family and social connections.” Rule 4-1.14, Comment [5]. Lawyer “should consider and balance such factors as: the client’s ability to articulate reasoning leading to a decision, variability of state of mind, and ability to appreciate consequences of a decision; the substantive fairness of a decision; and the consistency of a decision with the known long-term commitments and values of the client. In appropriate circumstances, the lawyer may seek guidance from an appropriate diagnostician.” Rule 4-1.14, Comment [6]. 

If Lawyer does find that there is a reasonable belief as to Client’s diminished capacity, and Client cannot adequately act in Client’s own interest, Lawyer must next determine if Client meets that high standard of being at substantial risk of financial harm. If all conditions are satisfied, Lawyer is permitted to take protective measures for Client if there are no other individuals or entities available to take appropriate actions on Client’s behalf, which may include “in appropriate cases, seeking the appointment of a next friend, guardian ad litem, conservator or guardian.” Rule 4-1.14 ( b ) . Comment [7] to Rule 4 - 1.14 provides guidance that “[i]n many circumstances, however, appointment of a legal representative may be more expensive or traumatic for the client than circumstances in fact require. Evaluation of such circumstances is a matter entrusted to the professional judgment of the lawyer. In considering alternatives, however, the lawyer should be aware of any law that requires the lawyer to advocate the least restrictive action on behalf of the client.” 

Throughout this assessment, Lawyer must remain mindful that, pursuant to Rule 4-1.14(c), information related to Client’s representation is still protected by the confidentiality provisions of Rule 4-1.6. However, Rule 4-1.14(c) recognizes that when Lawyer is taking protective measures pursuant to Rule 4-1.14(b), Lawyer is impliedly authorized to reveal a limited amount of information to the extent reasonably necessary to protect Client’s interests in accordance with Rule 4-1.6(a). See also Rule 4-1.14, Comment [8]. 

Finally, if Lawyer does determine, in Lawyer’s professional judgment, that appointment of a guardian, conservator, guardian ad litem, or next friend is reasonably necessary to protect Client, Lawyer should not seek to be appointed as Client’s legal representative, nor should Lawyer represent another person in the action. See Rule 4-1.7; Informal Opinions 2020-27 and 990095. 

2026-06 

Publication date: April 21, 2026 

Rules: 4-1.6, 4-1.22 

Summary: lawyer may not provide revoked trust documents from deceased client’s file unless a valid exception is met pursuant to Rule 4-1.6 

Question: Lawyer formerly represented an estate planning client, Client, who is now deceased. Lawyer has been engaged by Successor Trustees of the Trust for Client to assist Successor Trustees with handling the winding up of the Trust and making distributions to the beneficiaries. Lawyer provided the active trust documents to Successor Trustees. The bank is requesting prior trust documents even though the Second Amended and Restated Trust clearly state that prior amendments to the trust have been revoked and that it constitutes the current operating agreement going forward. Lawyer has maintained Client’s file in accordance with Rule 4-1.22, and still has the documents in question. 

Lawyer asks if the Rules of Professional Conduct allow disclosure to the Successor Trustees and/or the bank of any of the prior revoked trust documents? 

Answer: The analysis is the same for any possible disclosure of the prior revoked trust documents whether to the Successor Trustees or the bank. The duty of confidentiality to a client pursuant to Rule 4-1.6(a) survives the death of the client. See Missouri Informal Advisory Opinions 20070016, 20040004, 20030016, 20010154, 990146, 980172, and 970157. As applicable in this matter, Rule 4-1.6(a) prohibits Lawyer from revealing information relating to the representation of Client unless Lawyer had the consent of Client prior to Client’s death, Lawyer is impliedly authorized to disclose the information to carry out the representation, or Lawyer meets an exception pursuant to Rule 4-1.6(b). If Lawyer does not meet the criteria for disclosure in Rule 4-1.6(a), Lawyer must then comply with Rule 4-1.6(b). 

Rule 4-1.6(b) provides that “[a] lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:… (4) to comply with other law or a court order.” Whether other law permits or requires disclosure of the prior trust documents or amendments is a matter of law and beyond the scope of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Lawyer should consult Comment [10] to Rule 4-1.6 for additional guidance as to any possible exception at law and use Lawyer’s independent professional judgment in making such a determination. 

Further, Lawyer may be required by a court order to disclose the prior trust documents per Rule 4-1.6(b)(4). Lawyer should be mindful that a subpoena is not enough to require disclosure, but there must be a court order. Comment [11] to Rule 4-1.6 provides guidance that if Lawyer does not have now deceased Client’s consent to disclosure, Lawyer should assert “all nonfrivolous claims that the order is not authorized by other law or that the information sought is protected against disclosure by the attorney-client privilege or other applicable law.”¹ Comment [11] further notes that an appeal should be considered in the event of an adverse ruling, but Lawyer is permitted by this rule to comply with the court’s order. See also Missouri Informal Advisory Opinions 20060004, 20010154, and 2017-04. 

In the event that disclosure is permitted by Rule 4-1.6(b), Lawyer should consult Comments [12] and [13] to Rule 4-1.6 for guidance on ensuring that the disclosure is only to the extent Lawyer reasonably believes is necessary to accomplish the specified purpose. 

2026-07 

Publication date: April 21, 2026 

Rules: 4-8.2 

Summary: lawyer who makes a statement regarding a judge with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the integrity of the judge engages in misconduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice 

Question: Lawyer is in open court representing Client before Judge. Judge makes an adverse ruling as to a motion made by Lawyer on behalf of Client on a pre-trial matter. Lawyer is outraged by Judge’s ruling, and states, “Do whatever you are going to do. I know you are not going to be fair to me, Judge. You are never fair to me.” Does Lawyer’s statement violate the Rules of Professional Conduct? 

Answer: Lawyer’s statement to Judge likely violates Rule 4-8.2: Judicial and Legal Officials, and Rule 4-8.4: Misconduct. Rule 4-8.2(a) states: “[a] lawyer shall not make a statement that the lawyer knows to be false or with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity concerning the qualifications or integrity of a judge, adjudicatory officer or public legal officer, or of a candidate for election or appointment to judicial or legal office.” Further, Rule 4-8.4(d) provides that it is professional misconduct for a lawyer to “engage in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.” Such a statement by Lawyer is inappropriate under these Rules as it seems to question the integrity of Judge with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity, and may be prejudicial to the administration of justice as it is heard by others in the courtroom and damages faith in the impartiality and fairness of Judge. 

2026-08 

Publication Date: Aug. 3, 2026 

Rules: 6.03, 6.05, 4-7.1 

Summary: use of identification as “retired (inactive) lawyer” socially 

Question: Lawyer is retired and wishes to create a business card to use for social interactions, more as a calling or visiting card. Lawyer’s license is on inactive status. On that card, it states that Lawyer is a “Retired (Inactive) Attorney.” The card contains Lawyer’s residential address, personal phone number, personal email, and has the symbol of the Scales of Justice. Lawyer asks whether this would be appropriate under the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct. 

Answer: If Lawyer has retired and placed Lawyer’s license on inactive status, per Rule 6.03, Lawyer is prohibited from engaging in the unauthorized practice of law per Rule 6.05. Rule 4-7.1 – Communications Concerning a Lawyer’s Services – prohibits a lawyer from making false or misleading statements about a lawyer’s services. Since Lawyer clarified that Lawyer is a “Retired (Inactive) Attorney” on this card, it is the informal advisory opinion of this office that this is not false or misleading under Rule 4-7.1 and is appropriate for social interactions. 

2026-09 

Publication date: Aug. 3, 2026 

Rules: 4-1.1, 4-1.4, 4-1.5, 4-1.6, 4-3.4, 4-5.1, 4-5.3, 4-5.4 

Summary: use of AI Software in depositions including software with real-time “listening” capabilities 

Question: Lawyer asks about the ethical propriety of Law Firm’s possible use of a particular web-based, artificial intelligence (“AI”) deposition assistance software (“Software”). The Software “listens” while depositions are ongoing and provides real-time searchable transcripts. It also provides follow-up questions to lawyers and cross-references deponents’ statements with prior testimony, exhibits, and pleadings that have been uploaded into the Software’s system. Software Company, a vendor, has made numerous representations to Lawyer and Law Firm regarding how it operates and its security measures, and will agree in its contract that: (1) all data submitted to the Software Company is confidential and privileged material and will be treated in compliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct; (2) none of the Law Firm’s data will be used to train AI; and (3) Software Company will maintain confidentiality of the uploaded information into perpetuity even if Law Firm cancels its contract. 

Lawyer asks the following questions:

1. Whether it is ethically permissible for Law Firm to use this Software?
   1. If so, what ethical issues should Law Firm consider when developing a policy for the Software’s use?
2. Whether the Software’s real-time “listening” feature complies with the Rules of Professional Conduct? This includes addressing whether:
   1. a deponent’s general consent to the taking of a deposition is sufficient consent to encompass the use of real-time AI analysis of the deponent’s testimony; and
   2. it is necessary to disclose the Software’s use to the client, court, opposing counsel, and the deponent prior to or during the deposition? 

Answer to question one: This office does not endorse or approve the use of a particular software or vendor by a lawyer or law firm. Software terms and conditions, as well as third-party vendors, may change throughout the term of a contract between Law Firm and Software Company. Law Firm will have to use its independent professional judgment in determining whether the Software’s use is permissible under the Rules of Professional Conduct. Similarly, this office does not develop or approve specific policies for lawyers or law firms and cannot give legal advice. 

Law Firm should consider the following Rules when deciding whether to use Software and for developing policies for use of any AI for deposition assistance software. 

• Rule 4-1.1 – Competence. This rule requires a lawyer to have a reasonable understanding of the capabilities and limitations of AI software, including the risks posed by the use of the software. This is an ongoing obligation, and a lawyer must stay abreast of any changing risks or benefits. It also requires a lawyer to independently verify the software’s output for accuracy and to consider whether the use of the software meets the client’s interests and objectives. See also Rule 4-1.1, Comment [6].
• Rule 4-1.5 – Fees. This rule requires a lawyer to communicate to the client at the time of commencing the representation or soon thereafter, preferably in writing, any charge or fee to be assessed to the client for the use of the AI software. Any hourly fees charged to the client by lawyers or paralegals using the software must be reasonable, i.e., the amount of time charged must reflect the efficiencies provided by the use of the software.
• Rule 4-1.6 – Confidentiality. Whether AI software may be ethically used requires an assessment of the risk that confidential client information may be revealed or accessed by others outside the firm. It also requires an assessment of the risk that confidential information may be improperly used by others in the law firm. See also Missouri Informal Opinion 2018-09. This could occur when the AI software uses confidential information from one client to assist another client. A lawyer must obtain informed consent from the client to the use of the AI software before inputting confidential client information into the AI software.
• Rule 4-1.4 – Communication. A lawyer should discuss the use of the AI software with the client as part of obtaining informed consent as required by Rule 4-1.6.
• Rule 4-3.4(c) – Court Orders. Use of AI deposition software requires compliance with any court rules or orders addressing the use of AI and compliance with all discovery rules.
• Rule 4-5.1 – Managerial Responsibilities of Other Attorneys. This rule requires clear policies regarding the permissible use of Software by lawyers in the firm. It also requires training for Software’s use, including the best practices for secure data handling, complying with privacy laws, and complying with Rule 4-1.6.
• Rule 4-5.3 – Managerial Responsibilities Concerning Nonlawyer Assistants. This rule requires a law firm to make sure that Software Company takes reasonable steps to ensure work is done competently and to protect client confidences. This would require a reference check of a vendor’s credentials, understanding the vendor’s security policies and protocols, using confidentiality agreements, and ensuring the availability and accessibility of a legal forum for legal relief for violation of the vendor agreement. See also Missouri Informal Opinion 2021-03.
• Rule 4-5.4 – Professional Independence. A lawyer must maintain independent judgment when using AI software and not rely solely on content created by the generative software.

Lawyer should also refer to Missouri Informal Opinion 2024-11 for additional guidance under the Rules of Professional Conduct for development of a generative AI use policy. 

Answer to question two: The issue of whether the Software’s real-time “listening” feature complies with the Rules of Professional Conduct is a complex issue which involves the application of evolving substantive law, court rules, and various Rules of Professional Conduct. 

This office cannot comment or opine on the specific issue of whether the notice of deposition constitutes consent by the deponent to use of the Software. This would require interpretation of substantive privacy laws, procedural discovery rules, and other rules, all of which are beyond the scope of the Rules of Professional Conduct. 

The Rules of Professional Conduct do not specifically address whether a lawyer must advise the client, the court, opposing counsel, or the deponent of the use of AI software. As discussed above, it is necessary to obtain informed client consent for the use of AI software if confidential client information is uploaded into the AI system. 

There are several Rules of Professional Conduct that may need to be considered regarding providing notice to the other entities Lawyer has listed in the question. Rule 4-3.4(c) requires a lawyer to obey court rules or orders. Rule 4-4.4(a), in turn, provides that in representing a client, a lawyer shall not use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of a person. Thus, if local rules, standing court orders, discovery rules, or privacy laws require notice to any of the entities set forth in your question, a lawyer must provide such notice. 

If there are no local rules, standing court orders, discovery rules, or privacy laws requiring disclosure, Rules 4-4.1(a) should be considered. Rule 4-4.1(a) requires that a lawyer not knowingly make a false statement of material fact to a third person. Under this rule, partially true, but misleading statements or omissions as to the use of AI software, may violate the Rule. See Rule 4-4.1, Comment [1]. 

Formal Opinion 123 also may offer insight into the application of the Rules of Professional Conduct to the questions Lawyer poses. This opinion addresses a lawyer recording a conversation without notification to the other party. This could be viewed as similar to the use of the “listening” feature of the Software without providing notice to all interested parties. The Missouri Advisory Committee opined that in some circumstances an attorney may record a conversation, to which the attorney is a party, without notifying the other party to the conversation if that is consistent with other law. The Missouri Advisory Committee noted that there were certain circumstances when notification was required. These include when: (1) laws prohibit the recording in the jurisdiction in which the recording would occur, (2) the attorney states or implies that the conversation is not being recorded, and (3) the conversation is between the attorney and the client. The Missouri Advisory Committee noted that the list of exceptions is not exhaustive. 

Based upon the requirements of Rule 4-4.1 and Formal Opinion 123, at a minimum, a lawyer should not misrepresent the use of any AI software. In accordance with Rules 4-3.4(c) and 4-4.4(a) and Formal Opinion 123, a lawyer should also review substantive law, procedural rules, and court orders to ensure that there are no disclosure requirements. If any disclosure requirements exist, a lawyer must comply with the requirements.

2026-10 

Publication date: Aug. 3, 2026 

Rules: 4-1.6 

Summary: lawyer’s disclosure of confidential information to establish a fee and necessary protective measures 

Question: Lawyer is pursuing an action for unpaid fees against Former Client. Lawyer asks whether it is permissible to present or discuss the factual basis, including disclosure of the time entries, associated with a claim against Former Client for payment of Lawyer’s fees before the court? 

Answer: Lawyer is permitted to make limited disclosures to establish Lawyer’s fee as provided in Rule 4-1.6(b), which states that “[a] lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary: ... (3) to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client….” Further, Comment [9] to Rule 4-1.6 states: “A lawyer entitled to a fee is permitted by Rule 4-1.6(b)(3) to prove the services rendered in an action to collect it. This aspect of the rule expresses the principle that the beneficiary of a fiduciary relationship may not exploit it to the detriment of the fiduciary.” Missouri Informal Opinion 2013-02 addresses a similar factual scenario and encourages lawyers to consider protective measures as described in Comment [12] to Rule 4-1.6. This includes limiting access to information to the tribunal or other persons having a need to know it, or the use of appropriate protective orders or other arrangements be taken to limit the information revealed to establish the claim. It is also important to note that Missouri Informal Opinion 2015-09 provides that fees paid by clients are confidential, hence the need for the protective measures described in Comment [12] to Rule 4-1.6. 

2026-11 

Publication date: Aug. 3, 2026 

Rules: 4-1.6 and 4-1.9 

Summary: confidentiality issues for lawyer subpoenaed for deposition regarding a former client 

Question: Ten years ago, Lawyer A created a declaration of trust for property for a client, Grantor, and named one of Grantor’s children, Child 1, as trustee. Lawyer A also did additional estate planning for Grantor. Five years ago, Lawyer B amended the declaration of trust to add another child of Grantor, Child 2, as a co-trustee with Child 1. Two years ago, Grantor passed away. A dispute arose between the co-trustees as to the property in the declaration of trust, and Child 1 sued Child 2. Lawyer A has been subpoenaed to testify as to Grantor’s intent as to the property in trust, as well as the rest of the estate plan. Would Lawyer A violate any Rules of Professional Conduct if Lawyer A sat for a deposition or testified pursuant to a subpoena at trial in the underlying litigation between Child 1 and Child 2? 

Answer: The Rules of Professional Conduct do not prohibit Lawyer A, per se, from testifying during a deposition or at trial pursuant to subpoena in the underlying litigation, however, Rules 4-1.9(c) and 4-1.6 may severely restrict Lawyer A’s ability to testify to relevant issues in the underlying lawsuit. Rule 4-1.9 addresses a lawyer’s duty to former clients. Subsection (c)(2) provides that a lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not reveal information relating to the representation except as permitted by the Rules of Professional Conduct. Rule 4-1.6(a), in turn, provides that a lawyer may not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives the lawyer informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation, or the disclosure is permitted by Rule 4-1.6(b). 

Rule 4-1.6 survives the death of a client. See Comment [17] to Rule 4-1.6 and Missouri Informal Opinion 990146. The confidentiality provisions of Rule 4-1.6 are much broader than the substantive law issues of attorney-client and work product privileges. Confidentiality covers all information related to the representation, no matter its source.² See Rule 4-1.6, Comment [3]. 

Thus, Rule 4-1.6 will prohibit Lawyer from revealing information about Grantor’s estate planning unless the disclosure was impliedly authorized, Grantor gave informed consent to Lawyer to do so, or one of the Rule 4-1.6(b) exceptions apply. 

Informed consent as used in Rule 4-1.6 is defined as the “agreement by a person to a proposed course of conduct after the lawyer has communicated adequate information and explanation about the material risks of and reasonably available alternatives to the proposed course of conduct.” Rule 4-1.0(e). 

Rule 4-1.6(b) provides that “[a] lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary: …(4) to comply with other law or a court order.” Determining if there is “other law” that permits disclosure of the Grantor’s confidences is a matter of law and beyond the scope of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Lawyer A should consult Comment [10] to Rule 4-1.6 for additional guidance as to any possible exception at law and use independent professional judgment on this issue. 

A subpoena is not enough to require disclosure of client confidences. Rather it must be a court order and Lawyer A must assert “all nonfrivolous claims that the order is not authorized by other law or that the information sought is protected against disclosure by the attorney-client privilege or other applicable law.” Comment [11] to Rule 4-1.6. If the court orders the disclosure of client confidences and an appeal is not sought, Lawyer A may comply with the court’s order. See Comment [11] to Rule 4-1.6; see also Missouri Informal Advisory Opinions 20060004, 20010154, 2017-04, 2026-04, and 2026-06.

In the event that disclosure is permitted by Rule 4-1.6(b), Lawyer A should consult Comments [12] and [13] to Rule 4-1.6 for guidance on ensuring that the disclosure is only to the extent Lawyer A reasonably believes is necessary to accomplish the specified purpose.

Endnotes
1 Footnote 1 to Informal Opinion 2026-06. Rule 4-1.6 on confidentiality “not only applies to matters communicated in confidence by the client, but also to all information relating to the representation, whatever its source.” Rule 4-1.6, Comment [3]. Related bodies of law address confidentiality through attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine, which apply in judicial and other proceedings in which a lawyer may be called as a witness or to produce evidence regarding a client, but interpretations of those principles are matters of law and beyond the scope of the Rules of Professional Conduct. See Rule 4-1.6, Comment [3].
2 Footnote 1 to Informal Opinion 2026-11. Related bodies of law address confidentiality through attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine, but interpretations of those principles are matters of law and beyond the scope of the Rules of Professional Conduct. See Rule 4–1.6, Comment [3].