Separating fact from fiction: 10 scenarios to quiz your knowledge of the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct
Vol. 82, No. 1 / January-February 2026
Melinda J. Bentley is legal ethics counsel for the Office of Legal Ethics Counsel and Advisory Committee of the Supreme Court of Missouri.
Correction: This article was updated on March 9, 2026, to correct the statement: “Second, funds subject to this exception are only advance paid fees, and advanced paid expenses must still be held in a client trust account.”
Have you ever heard a colleague say something is required, or not required, by the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct and wondered, “Is that right?” This article examines 10 scenarios to help you separate fact from fiction when complying with the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct.
Scenario 1: The Supreme Court of Missouri does not require lawyers to have a statement as to confidentiality in the footer of emails. Fact or fiction?
Answer: Fact.
The rules do not require that a lawyer place a statement as to confidentiality in the footer of emails, although such a statement may be a best practice.1 While there can be practical reasons for including such a statement, or disclosures required by other law, statements that start with “The Supreme Court of Missouri requires,” “The Missouri Bar requires,” “The Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel requires,” or “The Legal Ethics Counsel requires” are not accurate.
Confidentiality is the key ethical consideration for lawyers in determining if email is an appropriate means for communicating matters with clients, and a lawyer should discuss such concerns with the client prior to using email.2 Rule 4-1.6(c) states that “[a] lawyer shall make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of the client.” Comment [15] to Rule 4-1.6 provides guidance regarding reasonable efforts to prevent unauthorized access or inadvertent disclosure. Factors lawyers should consider include, but are not limited to:
the sensitivity of the information, the likelihood of disclosure if additional safeguards are not employed, the cost of employing additional safeguards, the difficulty of implementing the safeguards, and the extent to which the safeguards adversely affect the lawyer’s ability to represent clients (e.g., by making a device or important piece of software excessively difficult to use).
Further, Comment [16] to Rule 4-1.6 provides guidance regarding reasonable precautions to prevent client information from reaching unintended recipients. Lawyers should consider factors including “the reasonableness of the lawyer’s expectation of confidentiality … the sensitivity of the information and the extent to which the privacy of the communication is protected by law or by a confidentiality agreement.”
In applying these considerations, lawyers should discuss with clients as to whether emails should be used to communicate about the representation. They should also consider the nature and sensitivity of the information that may be exchanged, what protective measures can be utilized to preserve confidentiality, and how the client may be accessing email and who else might also have access to that email (i.e. the client’s employer or family members).3
Scenario 2: A lawyer must withdraw immediately from representing a client and not contact them if the client files a complaint with the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel or a fee dispute resolution program. Fact or fiction?
Answer: Fiction.
Just because a client files a complaint with the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel or seeks assistance from a fee dispute resolution program does not mean the lawyer is prohibited from contacting the client unless the client is represented by counsel in that matter.4 Neither the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel nor the fee dispute resolution program would be representing a client such that contact would be prohibited pursuant to Rule 4-4.2.
A conflict of interest is not always present just because a complaint is filed. Sometimes the filing of such a complaint stems from a simple lack of communication or miscommunication. The lawyer should consider whether the lawyer’s personal interest materially limits their ability to represent the client’s interests.5 Specifically, consideration should be given to “if there is a significant risk that the lawyer’s ability to consider, recommend, or carry out an appropriate course of action for the client will be materially limited as a result of the lawyer’s other responsibilities or interests,”6 or “if the probity of a lawyer’s own conduct in a transaction is in serious question, it may be difficult or impossible for the lawyer to give a client detached advice.”7
Additionally, such circumstances do not automatically require that the lawyer withdraw from the representation. In this scenario, Rule 4-1.16 would only require withdrawal if the client discharges the services of the lawyer,8 or if continuing the representation would cause the lawyer to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.9 The lawyer may be permitted to withdraw if the criteria of Rule 4-1.16(b) are met.
Whether the lawyer is required or permitted to withdraw, they still must provide notice to or seek the permission of the tribunal and continue with the representation when ordered to do so, notwithstanding other good cause for terminating the representation.10 If the representation is terminated, to the extent reasonably practicable, the lawyer is required to take steps to protect the client’s interests.11
Scenario 3: A lawyer moving from Law Firm A may be screened from any conflicts of interest when joining Law Firm B. Fact or fiction?
Answer: Fiction.
Missouri does not recognize screening when it comes to conflicts related to Rule 4-1.10, addressing imputed disqualification of law firms; and Rule 4-1.9, addressing former clients and lawyers moving between law firms.12 While screening may be helpful in persuading a client to waive a conflict, such conflicts must be addressed pursuant to those specific rules.13
Instead, “screened” is a defined term pursuant Rule 4-1.0(k):
[T]he isolation of a lawyer from any participation in a matter through the timely imposition of procedures within a firm that are reasonably adequate under the circumstances to protect information that the isolated lawyer is obligated to protect under these Rules or other law.
Screening is only permitted in appropriate circumstances pursuant to Rule 4-1.11, 4-1.12, 4-1.18, and 4-6.5.
Scenario 4: Flat fees must always go into the client trust account. Fact or fiction?
Answer: Fiction.
Pursuant to Rule 4-1.15(c), which requires a lawyer to deposit legal fees and expenses that have been paid in advance into a client trust account, there is an exception that if the advanced paid flat fee does not exceed $2,000, it may be deposited into another account.
There are a few important notes about this exception. First, although it is permissive for the lawyer to choose to keep advance paid fees that do not exceed $2,000 in another account, it is not required.14 Second, funds subject to this exception are only advance paid fees, and advanced paid expenses must still be held in a client trust account.15 Finally, this exception applies only to advance paid fees that do not exceed $2,000, not installment payments for a larger sum.16
Scenario 5: A lawyer may respond to negative online reviews posted by clients, because clients waived confidentiality by posting information regarding the representation. Fact or fiction?
Answer: Fiction.
Rule 4-1.6(b)(3) only permits a lawyer to make a limited disclosure of confidential information “to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client …” An online review does not constitute a controversy between the lawyer and the client, so the lawyer may not respond and disclose confidential information in that public forum.17
Scenario 6: A lawyer may not withhold a client’s file for nonpayment of legal fees. Fact or fiction?
Answer: Fact.
Missouri Advisory Committee Formal Opinion 115 provides that a lawyer may not withhold a client’s file for nonpayment of legal fees. Instead, the client owns the file “from cover to cover, except for those items contained within the file for which the attorney has borne out-of-pocket expenses such as, but not limited to, transcripts.”18 It is important to note that there may be some limited exceptions to the content of materials to be provided to the client as part of the file, such as information subject to a protective order or settlement agreement,19 or information subject to a discovery agreement.20
Lawyers should consider Rule 4-1.22, Missouri Advisory Committee Formal Opinion 115, substantive law, and other Missouri informal opinions when determining the contents of the client file.21
Scenario 7: Lawyer A may not pay a referral fee to Lawyer B for sending a new client to Lawyer A. Fact or fiction?
Answer: Fact.22
Rule 4-7.2(c) prohibits a lawyer from giving “anything of value to a person for recommending a lawyer’s services.” That includes a “referral fee” from one lawyer to another. However, Rule 4-1.5(e) permits lawyers who are not in the same firm to divide fees so long as certain conditions are satisfied:
(1) the division is in proportion to the services performed by each lawyer or each lawyer assumes joint responsibility for the representation; (2) the client agrees to the association and the agreement is confirmed in writing; and (3) the total fee is reasonable.23
Scenario 8: Lawyer A prepared a will and deeds for a client who is now deceased. The personal representative’s lawyer, Lawyer B, requested that Lawyer A turn over a copy of the client’s file. Lawyer A may not disclose information, other than the actual will the lawyer considers still valid, or a deed that has been recorded, without a court order, unless the client gave express consent to permit disclosure. Fact or fiction?
Answer: Fact.24
Rule 4-1.6 provides that “[a] lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, or the disclosure is permitted by Rule 4-1.6(b).” In this scenario, it is impliedly authorized that Lawyer A may provide Lawyer B with the client’s will so the client’s estate planning wishes may be followed. However, the entire file may not be provided absent informed consent of the client prior to the client’s death, consistent with Rule 4-1.6(a) and 4-1.0(e); or a limited disclosure to comply with other law or a court order, consistent with Rule 4-1.6(b)(4).25
Scenario 9: A lawyer may disclose information contained in public court records the lawyer filed on behalf of the client without the client’s consent. Fact or fiction?
Answer: Fiction.26
Rule 4-1.6 prohibits disclosure of confidential client information unless a valid exception is met, and Rule 4-1.9(c) does likewise for confidential information of a former client. Even though information may be contained in a public record or available on Case.net, it is still confidential as to the lawyer. Comment [3] to Rule 4-1.6 notes that confidentiality
… not only applies to matters communicated in confidence by the client, but also to all information relating to the representation, whatever its source. A lawyer may not disclose such information except as authorized or required by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.
Further, Comment [4] explains that confidential information includes protected information that could reasonably lead to the discovery of such information by a third party. This would include information that could lead to the discovery of the client’s identity or of the situation involved.
Scenario 10: Lawyer A has been contacted by the surviving spouse of Lawyer B, a solo practitioner, who recently passed away. Lawyer A may not review the files of Lawyer B at the request of surviving spouse. Fact or fiction?
Answer: Fact.27
Unless Lawyer B obtained the informed consent of clients for another lawyer outside the firm to access the clients’ confidential information in the event of Lawyer B’s death or incapacitation, Lawyer A may not review the client files of Lawyer B absent appointment as a trustee pursuant to Rule 5.26.
Conclusion
If lawyers have questions about the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct in their practice, they can contact the Office of Legal Ethics Counsel via MO-Legal-Ethics.org to seek an informal advisory opinion about their prospective conduct.28
Endnotes
1 See Mo. Informal Opinion 2012-01.
2 See Melinda J. Bentley, “The Ethical Implications of Technology in Your Law Practice: Understanding the Rules of Professional Conduct Can Prevent Potential Problems,” 76 J. Mo. B. 20, at 22 (2020) (discussing application of the Rules of Professional Conduct to email and other electronic communications with clients).
3 Id.
4 See Mo. Informal Opinions 2022-05 and 20050059.
5 Rule 4-1.7(a)(2).
6 Rule 4-1.7, Comment [8].
7 Rule 4-1.7, Comment [10].
8 Rule 4-1.16(a)(3).
9 Rule 4-1.16(a)(1).
10 Rule 4-1.16(c).
11 Rule 4-1.16(d).
12 See Mo. Informal Opinion 2017-07.
13 See Mo. Informal Opinions 20060003, 20050030, and 20030007.
14 Rule 4-1.15(c).
15 See Mo. Informal Opinion 2018-15.
16 Id.
17 See Mo. Informal Opinion 2018-08.
18 Mo. Formal Opinion 115; See also In the Matter of Cupples, 952 S.W.2d 226, 234 (Mo. banc 1997); McVeigh v. Fleming, 410 S.W.3d 287, 289 (Mo. Ct. App. E.D. 2013).
19 See Mo. Informal Opinion 2020-07.
20 See Mo. Informal Opinion 2020-08.
21 See also Missouri Office of Legal Ethics Counsel and Advisory Committee of the Supreme Court of Missouri Resource Page: File Retention Resources, https://mo-legal-ethics.org/for-lawyers/resources/file-retention-resources/.
22 See Missouri Informal Opinion 2018-05.
23 See also Rule 4-1.5, Comments [7] and [8] (providing further guidance on division of fees).
24 See Missouri Informal Opinion 20040004.
25 See also Rule 4-1.6, Comments [10]-[13]; Missouri Informal Opinions 2017-04, 2015-02, 20070016, 20060004, 20010154; 20000165; 990146; 990118; 980080; 970100; 960130; 950264; 950018.
26 See Missouri Informal Opinion 2015-02.
27 See Missouri Informal Opinion 2018-11.
28 See Rule 5.30(c).