RPC 4.4 New Jersey Rules of Court, RPC 4.4: Respect for Rights of Third Persons, rendered as code with every cross-reference linked

rule RPC 4.4 "Respect for Rights of Third Persons" {
(a) In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no substantial purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.
(b) A lawyer who receives a document or electronic information and has reasonable cause to believe that the document or information was inadvertently sent shall not read the document or information or, if he or she has begun to do so, shall stop reading it. The lawyer shall (1) promptly notify the sender (2) return the document to the sender and, if in electronic form, delete it and take reasonable measures to assure that the information is inaccessible.
A lawyer who receives a document or electronic information that contains privileged lawyer-client communications involving an adverse or third party and who has reasonable cause to believe that the document or information was wrongfully obtained shall not read the document or information or, if he or she has begun to do so, shall stop reading it. The lawyer shall (1) promptly notify the lawyer whose communications are contained in the document or information (2) return the document to the other lawyer and, if in electronic form, delete it and take reasonable measures to assure that the information is inaccessible. A lawyer who has been notified about a document containing lawyer-client communications has the obligation to preserve the document.
Official Comment (August 1, 2016)
Lawyers should be aware of the presence of metadata in electronic documents. “Metadata” is embedded information in electronic documents that is generally hidden from view in a printed copy of a document. It is generated when documents are created or revised on a computer. Metadata may reflect such information as the author of a document, the date or dates on which the document was revised, tracked revisions to the document, and comments inserted in the margins. It may also reflect information necessary to access, understand, search, and display the contents of documents created in spreadsheet, database, and similar applications.
A lawyer who receives an electronic document that contains unrequested metadata may, consistent with Rule of Professional Conduct 4.4(b), review the metadata provided the lawyer reasonably believes that the metadata was not inadvertently sent. When making a determination as to whether the metadata was inadvertently sent, the lawyer should consider the nature and purpose of the document. For example, absent permission from the sender, a lawyer should not review metadata in a mediation statement or correspondence from another lawyer, as the metadata may reflect attorney-client communications, work product or internal communications not intended to be shared with opposing counsel. The lawyer should also consider the nature of the metadata at issue. Metadata is presumed to be inadvertently sent when it reflects privileged attorney-client or work product information. Metadata is likely to be inadvertently sent when it reflects private or proprietary information, information that is outside the scope of discovery by agreement or court order, or information specifically objected to in discovery. If a lawyer must use forensic “mining” software or similar methods to reveal metadata in an electronic document when metadata was not specifically requested, as opposed to using simple computer keystrokes on ordinary business software, it is likely that the information so revealed was inadvertently sent, given the degree of sophistication required to reveal the metadata.
A document will not be considered “wrongfully obtained” if it was obtained for the purposes of encouraging, participating in, cooperating with, or conducting an actual or potential law enforcement, regulatory, or other governmental investigation. Government lawyers, namely, lawyers at the offices of the Attorney General, County Prosecutors, and United States Attorney, who have lawfully received materials that could be considered to be inadvertently sent or wrongfully obtained under this Rule are not subject to the notification and return requirements when such requirements could impair the legitimate interests of law enforcement. These specified government lawyers may also review and use such materials to the extent permitted by the applicable substantive law, including the law of privileges.
Note: Adopted July 12, 1984 to be effective September 10, 1984; text redesignated as paragraph (a) and new paragraph (b) adopted November 17, 2003 to be effective January 1, 2004; paragraph (b) amended and Official Comment adopted August 1, 2016 to be effective September 1, 2016.
}
referenced_by: none
source: njcourts.gov // verbatim; changed 2025-11-05; corpus harvested 2026-09-02