伦理意见229

澳门赌场官网的秘密录音

录下自己参加的会议的澳门赌场官网, 他的客户, 调查他当事人的联邦机构的代表也没有违反道德, 即使他没有透露正在录制录音, 只要澳门赌场官网对录音没有做出肯定的虚假陈述. 该机构有理由不期望初步阶段的讨论是保密的. The agency also should expect that such discussions will be memorialized in some fashion by the investigated party's attorney and that the record made may be used to support a claim against the agency.

适用的规则

• 规则8.4 (c)(涉及不诚实、欺诈、欺骗或虚假陈述的不当行为)

调查

询问者受雇于联邦机构的监察长办公室. 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”. The subject of the investigation was informed that no criminal ramifications would result from this investigation and had received a "non-prosecution assurance.“当事人/雇员选择由D .的成员代表.C. 在一次由监察长办公室的调查员进行的采访中.

询问者报告说, during the "preliminary phase" of the interview in which ground rules and guidelines for the participants were being explained, 面试被终止了. 询问者将此归咎于该雇员澳门赌场官网的“破坏性行为”. 没有给出具体的例子, but the inquirer seems to mean that the employee's attorney 太k a more adversarial approach to the "interview" than the agency thought appropriate.

询问者开始相信澳门赌场官网一直在暗中用磁带记录诉讼过程, 包括非正式的“初步阶段”的会议. 该机构的调查人员在初步阶段同意将正式部分录下来, 询问者报告说，这盘磁带的副本将提供给受试者/员工. 询问者询问，对这种程序的“初步阶段”进行秘密录音是否不道德.

讨论

委员会不处理纪律规则范围以外的法律问题. 就本意见而言，我们假定磁带录音没有任何违法之处. 我们只评论在这种情况下秘密录音所涉及的法律伦理问题.
 
本委员会第178号意见, 作为刑事调查的一部分，澳门赌场官网A获得了澳门赌场官网B的许可，可以采访B的客户. The Committee held that A's failure to disclose A's intention to record the interview meant that the consent obtained from Attorney B under DR 7-104(A)(1) was not a sufficiently informed one. The majority opined that the client would be "lulled into a false sense of security and confidentiality in the interview" because of having obtained the "shield and protect[ion]" of retaining an attorney and the attorney having consented to the interview. The opinion also said that the standard created by DR 1-102(A)(4) obligated Attorney A to inform Attorney B that the interview would be recorded.

Four concurring members of the Committee would have gone further and found the conduct to be "conduct involving dishonesty, 欺诈, 欺诈或失实陈述”(DR 1-102(A)(4)), 规则8.4(c). 另外四名委员表示反对, disagreeing on whether the witness was a party to the matter under DR 7-104(A)(1) and whether the conduct violated DR 1-102(A)(4).

关于DR 7-104(A)(1)或其后继规则4没有问题.这里涉及到2. 这种情况不涉及澳门赌场官网在寻求与他的客户交谈的许可时被披露的内容. 该机构的代表可能不知道初步阶段的讨论正在被录音. 他们, 然而, do not have any basis for being "lulled into a false sense of security and confidentiality" that their words will not be memorialized and used to support a claim against the agency.

In 1974, Opinion 337 of the American 酒吧 Association Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility held that attorneys' taping of others was per se unethical in almost all circumstances.¹  The ABA Committee relied on Canon 9 of the Model Code of Professional Responsibility and the DR1-102(A)(4) prohibition on conduct involving dishonesty, 欺诈, 欺骗或失实陈述. 337号意见的广泛持有受到了批评. 有些国家选择不同于第337号意见所述的一般规则.

几家澳门赌场官网事务所的道德委员会已经禁止刑事辩护澳门赌场官网对证人进行录音. 亚利桑那州. 酒吧Op. 90-02 (March 16, 1990); Ky. Op. E-279 (1984); Assn. 纽约市澳门赌场官网事务所的澳门赌场官网.Y. 80-95 (undated); Tenn. Op. 86-F-14(1986年7月18日). The Idaho bar recently opined that lawyers may not secretly record telephone conversations with other lawyers or potential 目击者 but said it was permissible to record conversations between lawyer and client since these were confidential. 爱达荷州Op. No. (5月10日), 1989) The Utah 酒吧 has held lawyers may record surreptitiously by electronic or mechanical means communications with clients, 目击者, 或者其他澳门赌场官网. 犹他州(Op. No.90, undated) A 1975 亚利桑那州ona Opinion outlined four exceptions in vacating previous opinions stating an absolute ban on surreptitious tape recording.²  亚利桑那州. Op. No. 75-13(1975年6月11日).

尽管我们不一定同意上述任何一种观点, we, 太, 不相信对磁带录音本身的规定是合适的. 而, 应评估适用的情况，以确定特定行为是否构成不诚实, 欺诈, 欺骗或失实陈述.

Here the agency expects to tape at least the formal part of the hearing and will supply participating attorneys with a copy. The agency has no reasonable expectation that any statements made during the preliminary or formal phase of the hearing are secret or confidential as to the employee. 没有关于录音的虚假陈述, 我们不认为雇员的澳门赌场官网这样做是不道德的.

We find this to be a different circumstance than when Attorney A in our Opinion 178 sought permission for an informal interview with Attorney B's client without telling Attorney B that he intended to tape the interview. The conduct of a bar member in recording preliminary discussions in the type of proceedings involved in this opinion may be a prudent protection for the client. 没有相反的肯定的虚假陈述, we see no deceit in taping in these circumstances because the inquiring agency has reason to believe that the employee and his or her attorney may memorialize all discussions in some fashion and use that record to support a claim against the agency.

调查没有. 91-12-50
通过:1992年6月16日

1. 美国澳门赌场官网协会委员会给出的唯一例外是:

• … extraordinary circumstances in which the Attorney General of the United States or the principal prosecuting attorney of a state or local government or law enforcement attorneys or officers acting under the direction of the Attorney General or such principal prosecuting attorneys might ethically make and use secret recordings if acting within strict statutory limitations conforming to constitutional requirements. 本意见不涉及必须逐案审查的例外情况. 应该强调一下, 然而, that the mere fact that secret recordation in a particular instance is not illegal will not necessarily render the conduct of a public law enforcement officer in making such a recording ethical.

2. 这些例外是:(a)言论本身就是犯罪.g., 贿赂提供了, 威胁, extortion attempts and 2 obscene calls; (b) a conversation to protect the attorney or 他的客户 from perjured testimony; (c) conversations with informants and or persons under investigation for self-protection; and (d) conversations “where specifically authorized by statute, 法庭规则或法庭命令.”