WIRETAPPING, TAPE RECORDERS & LEGAL ETHICS: QUESTIONS POSED BY ATTORNEYINVOLVEMENT IN SECRETLY RECORDING CONVERSATION (CRS Report for Congress)
Premium Purchase PDF for $24.95 (22 pages)
add to cart or
subscribe for unlimited access
Pro Premium subscribers have free access to our full library of CRS reports.
Subscribe today, or
request a demo to learn more.
| Release Date |
March 6, 1998 |
| Report Number |
98-250 |
| Report Type |
Report |
| Authors |
Charles Doyle, American Law Division |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Summary:
This document also available in PDF Image .
The lawfulness of wiretapping and electronic eavesdropping is the subject of federal law.
Recently questions have arisen as to how this applies to attorneys. Surreptitiously recording
telephone or face to face conversations without the consent of at least one party to the conversation
is illegal and contrary to the ethical standards of the legal profession. In some states recording such
conversations requires the consent of all parties to the conversation. Elsewhere, recording a
conversation with the knowledge or consent of only one participant may be lawful but unethical.
The American Bar Association (ABA) concluded almost a quarter of a century ago that secretly
recording a conversation without the knowledge or consent of all of the participants violated the
ethical prohibition against engaging in conduct involving "dishonesty, fraud, deceit or
misrepresentation." The ABA conceded, however, that law enforcement recording, conducted under
judicial supervision, breached no ethical standard.
The opinions of the authorities responsible for regulation of the practice of law in the various
states fall into three categories. Some agree with the ABA. Some agree with the ABA but have
expanded the circumstances under which recording is considered within ethical bounds. Some reject
the ABA view.
Since the assessment of whether a particular recording offends ethical standards may well be
determined by whether the tribunal considers all secret recording ethically repugnant (some do, some
do not), the prudent lawyer avoids such recording fully aware that others may be allowed to record
with impunity.
Summaries and excerpts from relevant state court and bar association ethics committee
opinions
are appended.
