Can a lawyer give client names and billing details to an outside billing service without each client's consent?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1989. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A lawyer asked whether disclosing client names, addresses, and time charges to a third-party billing service hired to render and collect bills would violate the Disciplinary Rules. The committee framed the question as the routine transmission of information that may include confidences or secrets to non-employee personnel for ordinary billing, not the in-court fee-collection situation governed by DR 4-101(C)(4).
The committee read DR 4-101(D), which directs a lawyer to exercise reasonable care to prevent "employees, associates, and others whose services are utilized by him" from disclosing or using client confidences and secrets. It concluded the phrase "others whose services are utilized" assumes lawyers will use non-employee personnel in the ordinary course (secretaries, temporaries, bookkeepers, copy and computer operators, bill preparers, and the like) and does not impose an advance-consent requirement for each client. Requiring consent every time a temporary works on a matter, or taking blanket consents from every new client, would not serve a meaningful consent requirement. The crucial point under DR 4-101(D) is not whether the lawyer may disclose to such personnel, but that the lawyer takes responsibility for keeping the confidences secure.
The committee stressed the lawyer's ongoing duty: he must exercise due care in selecting the billing service, satisfy himself that it has adequate procedures to protect confidences and secrets, and monitor its performance, taking particular pains to ensure the service does not disclose client information to third parties, informally or in response to legal process, without first obtaining the consent of the attorney and the client. The objective is that the information be as secure with the service as in the lawyer's own office. The committee noted its reading aligned with ABA Opinion 1364 (1976). It limited the opinion to outside personnel regularly used in operating a functioning office, distinguishing the hiring of special personnel such as outside counsel (which requires client consent under EC 4-2) and situations where a client has given specific instructions or the circumstances indicate consent should be sought.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1989, before Massachusetts's adoption of the 2015 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.
Common questions
Q: Does a lawyer need each client's consent before using an outside billing service?
A: No. The committee concluded DR 4-101(D) does not impose an advance-consent requirement for outside personnel used in the ordinary course of running a legal office, including a billing service.
Q: What is the lawyer responsible for?
A: Under DR 4-101(D) the lawyer must exercise due care in selecting the service, confirm it has adequate procedures to protect confidences and secrets, and monitor it, ensuring it does not disclose client information to third parties (even under legal process) without the attorney's and client's consent.
Q: Are there situations where consent is still required?
A: Yes. The committee distinguished hiring special personnel such as outside counsel (consent required under EC 4-2), and cases where a client gave specific instructions or the circumstances indicate consent should be sought.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interpreted DR 4-101(D), the Massachusetts rule requiring a lawyer to safeguard client confidences and secrets handled by employees and others whose services the lawyer uses. That responsibility corresponds today to Model Rule 5.3 (responsibilities regarding nonlawyer assistance) read with Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality). The committee distinguished the in-court fee-collection exception of DR 4-101(C)(4) and referenced EC 4-2 on engaging outside counsel.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- DR 4-101(D) / Model Rule 5.3 and Model Rule 1.6 (safeguarding client information held by nonlawyer assistants)
- DR 4-101(C)(4) (revealing information necessary to collect a fee; distinguished)
- EC 4-2 (consent required to engage outside counsel)
Other opinions cited:
- ABA Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, Opinion 1364 (1976) (no advance consent required to use a billing service)
See also
Source
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1989 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.