Brandon Burke An attorney at your firm emails defense counsel about a settlement demand. She copies the client so he stays in the loop. Defense counsel hits reply-all with a low response. The client is upset, so he hits reply-all too. He types out what he really thinks of the case, plus a detail about his injuries he hadn’t shared with anyone. Now opposing counsel has it. A single CC line set up the whole thing. It’s a lawyer email to client habit that’s easy to fix.
Here is the short answer. Don’t copy the client on an email to opposing counsel. Forward it to them separately. Early in the case, ask which email account and device the client will use. Warn them about work and shared accounts. Two ABA opinions shape those habits: ABA Formal Opinion 503 on reply-all, and ABA Formal Opinion 11-459 on client email confidentiality.
This is general information, not legal advice. Your state’s rules control.
Copying the client on an email to opposing counsel
ABA Formal Opinion 503, issued November 2, 2022, answers one question. If you copy your client on an email to the other side’s lawyer, can that lawyer reply to everyone, including your client?
The opinion says yes. “In the absence of special circumstances, lawyers who copy their clients on an electronic communication sent to counsel representing another person in the matter impliedly consent to receiving counsel’s ‘reply all’ to the communication.”
That matters because of Model Rule 4.2, which limits a lawyer’s communication with a person represented by counsel. Opinion 503 treats your CC as consent to that contact. It also cites the eighth comment to Rule 1.1, on keeping up with technology.
The consent has limits. Here is what the opinion says about its reach:
- Topic. “Unless otherwise explicitly agreed, the consent covers only the specific topics in the initial email.” A reply-all can’t open a new subject with your client.
- Format. It applies to emails and texts the lawyer starts. It does not apply to a paper letter copied to the client.
- Content. Other rules, including Rule 4.4 and Rule 8.4(c) on misrepresentation, still limit what goes into that reply.
Opinion 503 puts the burden on the sending lawyer, who chose to copy the client. It notes that reply-all is the default setting in certain email platforms. In a long list of recipients, receiving counsel also may not realize one of them is the client.
The bigger risk sits with your own client. The opinion warns that a copied client “may reply hastily with sensitive or compromising information.” That is the risk in the opening scenario. So the opinion recommends a different habit.
“[T]he better practice is not to copy the client on an email or text to receiving counsel; instead, the lawyer generally should separately forward any pertinent emails or texts to the client.”
ABA Formal Opinion 503, “Reply All” in Electronic Communications
Forwarding separately takes one extra step. In return, the client’s reply goes only to your firm.
Why BCC isn’t the fix
Blind copying the client looks like an easy workaround. The client sees the email, and opposing counsel doesn’t see the client’s address.
Opinion 503 addresses this in footnote 14: “A separate forward is safer than ‘bcc’ing’ the client because in certain email systems, the client’s reply all to that email would still reach the receiving counsel.”
Nebraska’s ethics committee reached a similar view. Nebraska Ethics Advisory Opinion 23-01 allows BCC, “though the practice is not recommended.” It notes that both CC and BCC recipients can hit reply-all. Its preferred method is the same as the ABA’s: forward the correspondence to the client.
Where states disagree on reply-all
Opinion 503 interprets the ABA Model Rules, and the opinion itself notes that some states disagree. Your state’s position decides two things. One is whether opposing counsel may reply-all to your client. The other is whether you may CC the client at all.
| Source | Does copying the client imply consent to reply-all? | What else it says |
|---|---|---|
| ABA Formal Opinion 503 (2022) | Yes, absent special circumstances, limited to the topics in the first email | Better practice is to forward to the client separately. Forwarding beats BCC. |
| Nebraska Opinion 23-01 | Yes, agreeing with Opinion 503 | CC’ing the client discloses the client’s email address, so it requires the client’s informed consent. BCC is allowed but not recommended. Forwarding is preferred. |
| South Carolina Opinion 18-04 | No. Copying the client “does not, without more, constitute implied consent to a ‘reply to all’ responsive email.” | Consent can still be implied from the totality of the circumstances. Calls it “generally unwise” to copy a client on email to opposing counsel. Issued in 2018, before Opinion 503. |
| Florida (Florida Bar News, April 2023) | Bar staff say no. The Professional Ethics Committee “has not issued a formal opinion on this issue,” and the article says Opinion 503 is not binding in Florida. | Bar staff guidance, not a formal opinion. Safest course is to reply only to the sending lawyer. Best course is to forward emails or texts to your own client separately. |
Look at what the four sources share. None of them faults a lawyer for forwarding to the client separately. The ABA, Nebraska, and Florida all recommend it. South Carolina calls copying the client “generally unwise.” If your firm makes forwarding the default, you don’t have to know which rule the other lawyer’s state follows.
Florida’s guidance also flags the other direction. When opposing counsel copies their client, the safest course is to reply only to the sending lawyer. Build that into the same habit.
If you want to CC the client anyway
Sometimes copying the client is the practical choice. Opinion 503 lets the sending lawyer override the implied consent. Here’s how it describes doing that well:
- Tell receiving counsel in advance. The opinion says to do it “preferably in writing.”
- Make it prominent. Put the instruction at the beginning of the email, or send it in an earlier separate communication.
- Don’t bury it. A note hidden in “a long list of boilerplate disclaimers in their email signature area” risks being missed.
That last point catches firms that rely on a signature block. A standard email confidentiality clause serves its own purpose. Under Opinion 503, a “do not reply-all to my client” note in the signature is better than nothing. Receiving counsel may still miss it. The top of the email is the better place.
In Nebraska, Opinion 23-01 adds a step before any of this. Get the client’s informed consent before their email address goes on the CC line.
When the client writes from a work account
The second risk has nothing to do with opposing counsel. It’s about who else can read the client’s inbox.
ABA Formal Opinion 11-459, issued August 4, 2011, sets the baseline. A lawyer exchanging substantive email with a client “ordinarily must warn the client about the risk of sending or receiving electronic communications using a computer or other device, or e-mail account, where there is a significant risk that a third party may gain access.”
The opinion rests on Rule 1.1 and Rule 1.6(a). For a client who works for someone else, the opinion sets a minimum. The duty arises “at the very least” when the lawyer knows or reasonably should know the client is likely to use “a business device or system under circumstances where there is a significant risk that the communications will be read by the employer or another third party.”
Opinion 11-459 lists four considerations:
- The client has used, or plans to use, email with counsel.
- The client’s job gives them access to a workplace device or system.
- The employer or another third party can access that email.
- As far as the lawyer knows, employer policy and local law don’t clearly protect the employee’s personal email on a business system.
It also sets a default. The lawyer “ordinarily should assume that an employer’s internal policy allows for access to the employee’s e-mails sent to or from a workplace device or system.” That holds unless there is reason to believe otherwise.
Timing matters too. The warning should come “as soon as practical after a client-lawyer relationship is established.” That points to intake, or the first email the firm sends.
The opinion doesn’t exempt routine messages. It suggests avoiding the workplace system “perhaps for any attorney-client communications, because even seemingly ministerial communications involving matters such as scheduling can have substantive ramifications.” A “your deposition moved to Thursday” email still tells a reader something.
The protective measures it describes are practical:
- Don’t send email to the client’s workplace address.
- Caution the client against using a business account, or a personal account on a workplace device, at least for substantive email.
- If you learn the client reads personal email on an employer device, caution them. Footnote 7 says that if the client doesn’t heed the warning, the lawyer should “cease sending messages even to personal e-mail addresses.”
One limit is worth knowing. Opinion 11-459 expresses no view on whether privilege survives an employer’s access. Courts have split, and the law varies. The opinion is about the lawyer’s duty to warn, not about the privilege outcome.
Shared and borrowed devices
Opinion 11-459 reaches beyond the workplace. It names public or borrowed computers, such as a library or hotel computer. It also names a shared home computer, “such as when a client in a matrimonial dispute uses a home computer to which other family members have access.”
For a case team, that means the intake question can’t stop at “what’s your email?” Ask three things:
- Which email address will you use with us?
- Which device will you read it on?
- Does anyone else use that device or know the password?
Write the answers into the case management system. An address that looks personal can still sit on a shared family laptop. Tailor the advice to what the client tells you. For a refresher on the broader duty, see our guide to lawyer-client confidentiality.
A sample note for the first email to the client
Here is a short note your firm can adapt for the first email or the intake packet. Adjust it to your state’s rules and your own email practices.
Hi [Client first name], welcome to [Firm name]. A few quick notes about email while we work on your case.
Please use a personal email account on a device only you use. Avoid a work email address, a work computer or phone, or a shared or public computer. An employer or others may be able to read messages on those accounts and devices.
If you ever get an email from another lawyer, please don’t reply to it. Send your thoughts to us at [firm email or portal] instead. When we receive emails from the other side that you should see, we’ll forward them to you ourselves.
If your email address or device changes, let [case manager name] know. Thanks, [Attorney name].
A lawyer email to client checklist for your firm
These steps turn the two opinions into firm habits. Most of them are a single setting or a single line in an intake script.
- Forward, don’t CC. Make separate forwarding the default for anything from opposing counsel.
- Skip BCC. It can still let a client’s reply-all reach the other side.
- Reply only to the sender. When opposing counsel copies their own client, answer the lawyer alone.
- Ask at intake. Record the client’s email address, the device they’ll use, and whether anyone shares it.
- Never send to a workplace address. Flag work addresses in the CMS so staff don’t use them by mistake.
- Warn early. Send the email caution as soon as practical after the representation begins.
- Put any no-reply-all instruction at the top. If you must copy the client, tell receiving counsel in advance. Put it in a prominent spot, not only in the signature block.
- Train the whole team. Case managers and paralegals send email too, so the habits apply to everyone. Revisit them when a matter turns adversarial. For general email practice, see our guide to email for lawyers.
Where CasePulse fits
A portal message is not a group email with opposing counsel on it. That’s the practical case for moving client conversations out of the inbox. We built CasePulse as a client portal layer on top of the case management system your firm already uses. We work with Neos, Needles, LawBase, Litify, and Salesforce.
Our secure messaging is built so your team can “exchange messages with clients without leaving your case management system.” Client messages stay in your CMS instead of in scattered email threads. Clients choose how they get notifications: email, text, or both. We can’t stop someone at your firm from CC’ing a client on an email to opposing counsel, so the forwarding habit still matters. A notification sent to a work address still lands in a work inbox, so ask the intake question either way.
See everything the portal does on our features page, or get started when you’re ready.