Ethics Opinion 229

Surreptitious Tape Recording by Attorney

A lawyer who tapes a meeting attended by him, his client, and representatives of a federal agency investigating his client commits no ethical violation, even if he does not reveal that a tape is being made, so long as the attorney makes no affirmative misrepresentations about the taping. The agency reasonably should not expect that the preliminary phase discussions are confidential. 机关还应预料到，被调查方的澳门赌场官网将以某种方式记录这些讨论，并且所作的记录可用于支持对机关的索赔.

Applicable Rule

• 规则8.4 (c) (Misconduct involving dishonesty, 欺诈, deceit, or misrepresentation)

Inquiry

The inquirer is employed in the inspector general's office of a federal agency. 该机构正在对该机构的一名雇员进行“正式的行政/就业调查”. 调查对象被告知，这次调查不会造成任何刑事后果，并得到了“不起诉保证”." The subject/employee chose to be represented by a member of the D.C. 酒吧 at an interview conducted by an investigator in the Inspector General's office.

The inquirer reports that, 在面试的“初步阶段”，与会者的基本规则和指导方针被解释, the interview was terminated. The inquirer ascribes this to the "disruptive actions" of the employee's attorney. No specific examples are given, 但询问者的意思似乎是，雇员的澳门赌场官网在“面谈”中采取了比机构认为合适的更具对抗性的方法.

The inquirer came to believe that the attorney had been surreptitiously tape recording the proceeding, including the informal "preliminary phase" of the meeting. The agency's investigator had agreed during the preliminary phase to tape the formal portion to follow, and the inquirer reports that a copy of this tape would have been provided to the subject/employee. The inquirer asks if surreptitious taping of the "preliminary phase" of such a proceeding is unethical.

Discussion

The Committee does not address questions of law outside the scope of the disciplinary rules. We assume for the purposes of this opinion that there was nothing illegal about the tape recording. We comment only on the legal ethics question involved in surreptitious tape recording in these circumstances.
 
In our Committee's Opinion 178, Attorney A gained permission from Attorney B to interview B's client as part of a criminal investigation. 委员会认为，A没有透露A打算记录面谈，这意味着根据DR 7-104(A)(1)从B澳门赌场官网那里获得的同意不是充分知情的同意. 多数人认为，客户会“在面谈中产生一种虚假的安全感和保密性”，因为他们获得了聘请澳门赌场官网的“保护”，而澳门赌场官网也同意了面谈. 该意见还表示，DR 1-102(A)(4)所制定的标准要求澳门赌场官网A告知澳门赌场官网B面谈将被记录.

委员会的四名同意的成员会进一步认为这种行为是“涉及不诚实的行为”, 欺诈, deceit or misrepresentation" under DR 1-102(A)(4), now 规则8.4(c). Four other members dissented, 不同意证人是否是DR 7-104(a)(1)项下事项的一方，以及该行为是否违反DR 1-102(a)(4)。.

No question concerning DR 7-104(A)(1) or its successor Rule 4.2 is involved here. This circumstance does not involve what was disclosed to an attorney in seeking permission to talk to his client. The agency representatives may be unaware that preliminary phase discussions are being taped. 他们, however, 难道没有任何理由让他们“陷入一种虚假的安全和保密意识”，认为他们的话不会被记住，不会被用来支持对中情局的索赔吗.

In 1974, 美国澳门赌场官网协会道德与职业责任委员会第337号意见认为，澳门赌场官网对他人进行录音本身在几乎所有情况下都是不道德的.¹  美国澳门赌场官网协会委员会依据《澳门赌场官方软件》第9条和DR1-102(A)(4)条禁止涉及不诚实行为, 欺诈, deceit or misrepresentation. The broad holding of Opinion 337 has been criticized. Some states have elected to vary from the general rule stated in Opinion 337.

Ethics committees of several bars have excepted recording of witnesses by a criminal defense lawyer. 亚利桑那州. 酒吧Op. 90-02 (March 16, 1990); Ky. Op. E-279 (1984); Assn. of the City 酒吧 of N.Y. 80-95 (undated); Tenn. Op. 86-F-14 (July 18, 1986). 爱达荷州澳门赌场官网协会最近表示，澳门赌场官网不得秘密记录与其他澳门赌场官网或潜在证人的电话交谈，但表示允许记录澳门赌场官网与客户之间的谈话，因为这些谈话是保密的. Idaho Op. No. 130 (May 10, 1989)犹他州澳门赌场官网协会认为澳门赌场官网可以通过电子或机械手段秘密记录与客户的通信, witnesses, or other lawyers. (Utah Op. No.90, (未注明日期)1975年亚利桑那州的一项意见概述了四个例外情况，以取代先前声明绝对禁止秘密录音的意见.²  亚利桑那州. Op. No. 75-13 (June 11, 1975).

Although we do not necessarily concur with any of the preceding opinions, we, 太, do not believe that a per se rule with respect to tape recording is appropriate. Rather, applicable circumstances should be evaluated to determine whether the particular conduct constitutes dishonesty, 欺诈, deceit or misrepresentation.

在这里，该机构希望至少录制听证会的正式部分，并将向参与的澳门赌场官网提供一份副本. 该机构没有合理的期望，在听证会的初步或正式阶段所作的任何陈述是秘密或机密的雇员. Absent affirmative misrepresentations about taping the proceedings, we see nothing unethical in an employee's attorney having done so.

我们认为这与澳门赌场官网a在第178号意见中请求允许与澳门赌场官网B的客户进行非正式面谈而没有告诉澳门赌场官网B他打算对面谈进行录音的情况不同. 澳门赌场官网在记录本意见书中涉及的诉讼类型的初步讨论时的行为可能是对客户的审慎保护. Absent affirmative misrepresentations to the contrary, 在这种情况下，我们认为录音没有欺骗，因为询问机构有理由相信雇员及其澳门赌场官网可能以某种方式记录下所有的讨论，并利用该记录来支持对机构的索赔.

Inquiry No. 91-12-50
Adopted: June 16, 1992

1. The only exception given by the ABA committee was:

• 在特殊情况下，美国司法部长或州或地方政府首席检察官，或在司法部长或首席检察官指导下行事的执法澳门赌场官网或官员，如果在符合宪法要求的严格法定限制内行事，可能会道德地制作和使用秘密录音. This opinion does not address such exceptions which would necessarily require examination on a case by case basis. It should be stressed, however, 在特定情况下的秘密录音不违法这一事实并不一定使公共执法人员在进行这种录音时的行为合乎道德.

2. These exceptions are: (a) utterances that are themselves crimes, e.g., bribe offers, threats, extortion attempts and 2 obscene calls; (b) a conversation to protect the attorney or his client from perjured testimony; (c) conversations with informants and or persons under investigation for self-protection; and (d) conversations “where specifically authorized by statute, court rule or court order.”