Most lawyers know the drill when a representation ends: hand over the file, return any unearned fees, don’t drag your feet. But what happens when the former client or their new lawyer calls with a question that isn’t answered by anything in the file? On January 21, 2026, the ABA Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility addressed exactly that in Formal Opinion 520.
The Baseline Rule
Model Rule 1.16(d) requires a lawyer, upon termination, to take reasonably practicable steps to protect the client’s interests — chiefly, surrendering the client’s papers and property and refunding unearned fees. In the overwhelming majority of cases, that’s the whole obligation. The opinion doesn’t change what counts as “the file”; that’s still governed by each jurisdiction’s own rules and case law. The opinion addresses a narrower question: once the file is out the door, is there ever a duty to explain things that were never written down?
A Limited Duty to Answer
The Committee says yes, but only in limited circumstances. A lawyer may have to convey unrecorded information after termination when (1) the lawyer actually acquired it during the representation, (2) it isn’t available to the client from any other source, and (3) it’s important to protecting the client’s interests in that same matter. Where a specific request makes clear this kind of information is needed, the Committee says Rule 1.16(d) requires the lawyer to provide it, so long as doing so is reasonably practicable.
Notably, neither the text of Rule 1.16 nor its comments squarely address this scenario, so the opinion leans on secondary sources — professional norms like the ABA’s Criminal Justice Standards, which expect trial counsel to cooperate with appellate counsel, plus a couple of Wisconsin disciplinary cases involving lawyers who stonewalled successor counsel. Critics have pointed out those Wisconsin cases actually turned on a rule closer to Model Rule 1.4 (ordinary client communication), which doesn’t apply to former clients — so the doctrinal footing is a little patchwork, even if the practical guidance holds up.
Where the Line Falls
The opinion’s examples are useful here. A criminal defense lawyer represents a client through trial and a losing appeal; post-conviction counsel later investigates a possible ineffective-assistance claim and asks about strategic decisions or conversations never memorialized in the file. Because that information exists only in the original lawyer’s head, is unavailable elsewhere, and matters to the client’s interest in the same matter, the lawyer must respond. On the other hand, if the file has already been surrendered and the former client is now asking for something readily available from the court’s own docket, there’s no duty to go track it down. Requests tied to a different matter than the one the lawyer actually handled don’t trigger the duty either. And the lawyer never has to generate anything new — no research, memos, or affidavits — since that would exceed “reasonably practicable” and starts to look like free legal work for a non-client.
What’s Still Off the Table
The opinion is equally clear that Rule 1.4, the general communication rule, stops applying once representation ends, so there’s no duty to volunteer information, flag errors discovered later, or provide updates in the absence of a request. Answering a legitimate follow-up request also isn’t the same as resuming representation — it doesn’t obligate the lawyer to give new legal advice. And when the request comes from successor counsel rather than the client directly, Model Rule 1.9(c) still applies: the former lawyer should confirm the client has actually consented to the disclosure, and can reasonably ask why the information is needed.
The practical upshot for most closed files: Hand over the file, refund any unearned fees, and you’re done. But Formal Opinion 520 is a good reminder that thorough file management during the representation, including writing down anything a future lawyer might need, is the best way to make sure this question never comes up. And if a former client or successor counsel does reach out later, running the request through Formal Opinion 520’s three-part test can assist your response.
