Bindinglaw

MN · rules

Minn. Law. Prof. Resp. Bd. Op. 18

repealedin force · 2026-09-14 – presentact-effective-date

Secret Recordings of Conversations

Adopted: September 20, 1996.

Repealed: April 18, 2002.

History

Comment At its April 18, 2002 meeting the Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board repealed Opinion No. 18 which made it unethical for lawyers to secretly record conversations with others. The repeal of Opinion No. 18 followed the lead of the American Bar Association in changing its longstanding position condemning the surreptitious, but legal, recording of conversations by lawyers. In June 2001, the ABA issued Formal Ethics Opinion 01-422, which withdrew its previous opinion (Formal Opinion 337) that had been in effect since 1974 prohibiting secret recording. Minnesota Lawyers Board Opinions for the most part constitute interpretations or clarifications of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct. Opinion No. 18 was premised upon the belief that secret recording of conversations by lawyers was inherently deceitful, and therefore unethical except in the limited circumstances enumerated in the Opinion. The Comment to Opinion No. 18 relied principally upon the ABA opinion from 1977 for the proposition that secret recording was inherently deceitful and therefore violated the ethical standards. The Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct generally prohibit lawyers from engaging in conduct that involves deceit. See Rule 8.4(c). A number of states, like Minnesota, have since 1974, issued ethics opinions concluding that secret recording was deceitful and therefore unethical. However, given the ABA's recent change of heart, and its rationale, the Minnesota Lawyers Board was doubtful about whether secret recording by itself continued to fall clearly within the deceit proscription of Rule 8.4(c). It was this doubt that led the Board to withdraw or repeal Opinion No. 18. In repealing the Opinion, the Board and its Opinion Committee echoed the concerns expressed by the ABA. Lawyers should be aware that secret recording is illegal in some states and therefore prohibited by Rule 4.4. Moreover, lawyers who falsely deny recording conversations will be subject to discipline under Rules 4.1 and 8.4(c). And finally, although it may not be unethical to record client conversations, except in very limited circumstances (e.g., client is making criminal threats to the lawyer) it is certainly inadvisable to do so without disclosure.

Provenance

Source
revisor.mn.gov
Retrieved
2026-09-15
Edition
2026-09-14
Content hash
d05066f4fbd8bb2d2ced71e48c9513d327fd229ff62f43f20b0585bf7a582f75
View the official source →

The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.

Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.

Coverage · API docs

Bindinglaw

Point-in-time US law with the receipt attached. Source URL, retrieval time, content hash, and validity dates on every answer.

curl api.binding.law/v1/law/coverage

© 2026 binding.law · a Jubal, Inc. productAttorneys and firms never pay. Ever.