Ethics Opinion

Opinion 25-1

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 25-1
November 10, 2025
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.
Lawyers may only share information relating to a client’s representation with an online
discussion groups or listserv if the disclosure would serve the client’s interests and the client has
not prohibited disclosure. It is recommended that lawyers remove identifying information by
posing questions in a hypothetical or abstract form, but even those measures may be insufficient
to protect the client’s information in some circumstances. If there is a possibility that the client
may be identified, the lawyer should seek the client’s informed consent before sharing the
client’s information.
RPC:
4-1.6
OPINIONS: 93-5; 10-3; 12-1; 24-1; ABA Formal Opinion 511R; Maryland Ethics Opinion
2015-03; Illinois Ethics Opinion 12-15; Texas Ethics Opinion 673; Oregon Ethics
Opinion 2011-184.
FLORIDA STATUTES: § 90.502
Online legal discussion groups and peer to peer listservs provide a valuable resource to
participants because they facilitate contact with a focused community of experienced,
knowledgeable practitioners. Listservs offer members access to up to date information regarding
legal issues and quick feedback and responses from peers. Group discussions can provide useful
exchanges regarding legal developments and significant court decisions.
The Professional Ethics Committee (PEC) has not previously offered guidance on
participation in online discussion groups and listservs. Ethics opinions from several states and
the American Bar Association (ABA) have addressed the use of online discussion groups and
listservs and while acknowledging the benefits of participation, warn practitioners about the
danger of revealing identifying information about clients. Their analysis is based on American
Bar Associations (ABA) Model Rule 1.6, which permits disclosures impliedly authorized to
carry out a representation. See ABA Formal Opinion 511R, Maryland Ethics Opinion 2015-03,
Illinois Ethics Opinion 12-15, Texas Ethics Opinion 673 and Oregon Ethics Opinion 2011-184.
These opinions typically advise that, absent informed consent, discussions regarding
clients should be general and abstract or posed as a hypothetical. However, the opinions
recognize that in some situations even the use of hypotheticals may be inappropriate if the
client’s identity could be surmised, or the client could be prejudiced. For example, posts with
unique facts, involving a high-profile matter, or within a small or specialized legal community
may enable other lawyers, including opposing counsel, to deduce a client’s identity. The ABA
opinion expresses specific concern about lawyers such as in-house counsel or government

Page 1

lawyers who represent only one client posting on listservs without client consent because the
client’s identity would be obvious.
Lawyers who participate in group and listserv discussions must comply with the
confidentiality rule, Rule 4-1.6 of the Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. This applies to
practitioners who join in general discussions, make inquires, or provide advice. Rule 4-1.6 is
very broad and provides that all information relating to a client’s representation is confidential
and must not be voluntarily disclosed without either the client’s informed consent or the
application of a relevant exception stated in the confidentiality rule. The comment to Rule 4-1.6
offers further guidance, stating that “[t]he confidentiality rule applies not merely to matters
communicated in confidence by the client but also to all information relating to the
representation, whatever its source.” Additionally, the comment explains that “[a] fundamental
principle in the client-lawyer relationship is that, in the absence of the client’s informed consent,
the lawyer must not reveal information relating to the representation.” The evidentiary concept
of lawyer-client privilege, set forth in Florida Statutes § 90.502, is more limited and protects
certain confidential communications made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice from
compelled disclosure by other parties.
Rule 4-1.6(c)(1) provides that “[a] lawyer may reveal confidential information to the
extent the lawyer reasonably believes it is necessary to … serve the client’s interest unless it is
information the client specifically requires not to be disclosed[.]” This exception is not included
in the ABA model rule. In effect, unless a client has instructed otherwise, a lawyer may disclose
confidential information if the lawyer reasonably believes it will further the client’s
representation. For example, lawyers generally have implied authorization to share information
with other members of their law firm or to disclose information during negotiations that enable a
satisfactory resolution. However, even when disclosure is permitted, Rule 4-1.6(f) notes that
disclosure should be limited to “no more information than is required to meet the requirements or
accomplish the purposes of this rule.”
In Florida Ethics Opinion 93-5, the committee concluded that although client consent is
required to permit a title insurer to audit a lawyer’s general trust account, consent is not required
for an audit of a special trust account used exclusively for transactions in which the lawyer acts
as title or real estate settlement agent. The Committee distinguished the special trust account
from general trust accounts finding that the audit served the clients' interests because such audits
"are necessary to ensure the safety of the funds deposited in the special trust account and thus
facilitate a satisfactory conclusion for those whose funds are placed in the account.”
The Committee addressed trust account audits again in Florida Ethics Opinion 12-1,
reiterating that informed consent is not required to allow a title insurer to audit a trust account
holding funds solely for transactions insured by that title insurer because the audit would serve
the clients’ interests. The committee advised, however, that a lawyer should “obtain each
client’s informed consent before permitting multiple title insurers to audit a single trust account,
even if that separate trust account was devoted exclusively to holding funds for clients’ real
estate and title transactions, unless the lawyer reasonably concludes that the audits are necessary
Page 2

to serve the interests of the affected clients and the affected clients have not specifically
prohibited disclosure of the information.”
The exception in Rule 4-1.6(c)(1) is also discussed in Florida Ethics Opinion 10-3,
regarding the ethical obligations of a lawyer whose client is deceased. The opinion acknowledges
the impossibility of seeking informed consent under the circumstances and advises that
uncertainties about voluntary disclosure should be resolved in favor of nondisclosure. However,
the opinion addresses various situations where disclosure to other parties may serve the
decedent’s interests, such as providing information to the personal representative of the
decedent’s estate. Conversely, information relating to a deceased client’s criminal representation
generally should not be disclosed as it would not serve the decedent’s interests.
Most recently, Florida Ethics Opinion 24-1 addresses protecting confidential client
information when using generative artificial intelligence. The opinion states, in pertinent part:
…Absent the client’s informed consent or an exception permitting disclosure, a
lawyer may not reveal the information. In practice, the most common exception is
found in subdivision (c)(1), which permits disclosure to the extent reasonably
necessary to “serve the client’s interest unless it is information the client
specifically requires not to be disclosed[.] Rule 4-1.6(c)(1). Nonetheless, it is
recommended that a lawyer obtain the affected client’s informed consent prior to
utilizing a third-party generative AI program if the utilization would involve the
disclosure of any confidential information.
Rule 4-1.6(e) also requires a lawyer to make reasonable efforts to prevent the
inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information
relating to the client’s representation…
In accord with our prior opinions, lawyers participating in listservs and discussion online
groups may reveal client information only to the extent reasonably necessary to serve the client’s
interests and only if the client has not directed otherwise. When possible, posts regarding a
client’s matter should be general and abstract so they do not risk exposure of any information
beyond that which is necessary, such as the client’s identity. Prior informed consent is
recommended if there is a possibility that the client could be identified whether due to the
content of the disclosure or the identity of the posting lawyer. Uncertainty should be resolved in
favor of nondisclosure. Alternatively, a lawyer planning to use a listserv or similar group
discussion forum should consider obtaining the client’s informed consent at the outset of
representation, particularly if the lawyer represents a single client.

Page 3