Skip to main content

Misuse of Subpoena Process

Adopted: January 24, 1997

Opinion rules that a lawyer may not issue a subpoena containing misrepresentations as to the pendency of an action, the date or location of a hearing, or a lawyer's authority to obtain documentary evidence.

Editor's Note: This opinion was originally published as RPC 236 (Revised).

Inquiry #1:

Attorney A represents John Doe who was injured in an automobile accident. Witnesses are listed on the accident report. Attorney A issues subpoenas to the witnesses directing them to appear at his office at a designated time "to give testimony." The subpoenas are served on the witnesses who later appear at Attorney A's office at the appointed times. The only persons in attendance are Attorney A, a secretary/notary, and the witnesses. No notice was given to any adverse parties. Is Attorney A's conduct ethical?

Opinion #1:

No. Rule 45(a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure permits the issuance of a subpoena "for the purpose of attaining the testimony of a witness in a pending cause." Where no action is pending, it is false and deceptive, in violation of Rule 1.2(c) and Rule 7.2(a)(4), to issue a subpoena to a prospective witness that misleads the prospective witness as to the existence of a filed lawsuit and as to the prospective witness's legal obligation to appear.

Inquiry #2:

After the commencement of a child custody and support action, Mother's attorney issues and signs a subpoena to Father's employer directing the employer to appear in district court at a designated time and to produce Father's employment records. The case is not scheduled for trial or hearing. Mother's attorney attaches a letter to the subpoena that informs the employer that a court appearance may be avoided by sending copies of the employment records directly to the attorney. No notice is given to Father's attorney. Are the actions of Mother's attorney ethical?

Opinion #2:

No. Stating in the subpoena and in the letter to the employer that there is a scheduled court hearing at which the employment records must be produced is a misrepresentation of fact in violation of Rule 1.2(c) and Rule 7.2(a).

Inquiry #3:

Attorney A filed a caveat on behalf of two sons of Testator. Attorney A issues and serves a subpoena on Dr. John Smith, Testator's physician, directing Dr. Smith to appear at Attorney A's office at a designated time to produce all of the medical records pertaining to Testator. Attorney A also issues and serves a subpoena on the custodian of the records of ABC Bank directing the custodian to appear at Attorney A's office at a designated time to produce all of Testator's and Testator's executor's bank records for the preceding five years. No trial, hearing, or deposition is scheduled in the pending action. Attorney A writes letters to the witnesses advising them that they may avoid appearing at his office by providing him with copies of the documents he has subpoenaed. Attorney A did not give notice to any other party interested in the caveat proceeding. Is Attorney A's conduct ethical?

Opinion #3:

No. It is deceptive and a violation of Rule 1.2(c) and Rule 7.2(a)(4) for a lawyer to use the subpoena process (except in compliance with the Rules of Civil Procedure of the court where the action is pending) to mislead the custodian of documentary evidence as to the lawyer's authority to require the production of such documents. However, a subpoena issued in compliance with the applicable Rules of Civil Procedure may be used by the lawyer.

Inquiry #4:

Is notice to opposing counsel required when a lawyer issues a subpoena pursuant to Rule 45(c) of the Rules of Civil Procedure commanding a person to appear and produce records?

Opinion #4:

This is a question of civil procedure which is outside the purview of the Ethics Committee.

Back to top