Aguiar v. Williams, No. 1042-12-18 Cncv (Toor, J., Aug. 21, 2019).

[The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the text and the 

accompanying data included in the Vermont trial court opinion database is not guaranteed.]

Aguiar vs. Williams

ENTRY REGARDING MOTION

Count 1, Access to Records (1042-12-18 Cncv)

Title: Motion for Summary Judgment (Motion 4)

Filer: David Williams

Attorney: Kurt A. Kuehl

Filed Date: April 30, 2019

Response filed on 07/15/2019 by Stephen Aguiar, Plaintiff

Plaintiff's Opposition; 

Response filed on 07/30/2019 by Attorney Kurt A. Kuehl for Defendant David Williams

Defendant's Reply; 

 

This is a conversion claim brought by a client against his former lawyer. Mr. Aguiar 

alleges that Attorney Williams has unlawfully refused to turn over the files related to a 

2009 federal criminal case. Williams has filed a motion for summary judgment. Aguiar 

represents himself. Kurt Kuehl, Esq. represents Williams. 

Findings of Fact

The relevant undisputed facts are that Williams previously gave Aguiar either 

paper or digital copies of much of his case file, with the exception of materials Williams 

obtained from the U.S. Attorney’s Office subject to an agreement not to further distribute 

copies. A jail where Aguiar was housed destroyed some of the materials. Williams asserts 

that he provided a second copy; Aguiar agrees but denies that the second copy included 

everything Williams says it did. In responding to discovery in this case, Williams found 

STATE OF VERMONT

SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL DIVISION

Chittenden Unit Docket No. 1042-12-18 Cncv
2

some additional documents that he had misplaced, and sent copies to Aguiar. Williams 

has also offered to allow Aguiar (who remains incarcerated) to send someone on his behalf 

to come to inspect the many boxes of original files. Aguiar alleges that (1) some of the 

materials were on an iPod which he alleges Williams took back, and (2) some 

correspondence in Williams’ file was never provided. 

Conclusions of Law

A lawyer has an obligation to allow the client to inspect and copy the lawyer’s files 

relating to the client.1 Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers § 46(2) (2000). 

Here, Williams has done more than that, by first providing copies of most or all of the 

materials, then providing some or all of them a second time, and now offering to allow 

someone on Aguiar’s behalf to review everything in his office. The only exception is the 

materials that Williams obtained pursuant to an agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office 

not to further distribute them. Whether Aguiar liked that restriction or not, Williams is 

bound to honor it. Because of the agreement, “substantial grounds exist to refuse” to 

produce copies. Restatement, § 46 cmt. c (“A lawyer may deny a client’s request to 

retrieve, inspect, or copy documents when compliance would violate the lawyer’s duty to 

another.”); Schmidt v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., No. 09-C-0643, 2013 WL 989829, at *3 

(E.D. Wis. Mar. 13, 2013) (client not “entitled to copies of documents his attorneys 

received on condition that they would not disclose it to others.”).

Aguiar seems to believe that he is entitled to the original files, but cites no authority 

for that proposition. To the contrary, generally “a copy will suffice.” Restatement, § 46 

cmt. d. While a lawyer must provide a former client with “such originals . . . as the client 

1 Some jurisdictions subscribe to a limited client right to the “end product” of the representation, while others subscribe 

to the “whole file” approach. Sage Realty Corp. v. Proskauer Rose Goetz & Mendelsohn L.L.P., 689 N.E.2d 879, 881-82

(N.Y. 1997). The Vermont Rules of Professional Conduct take no position on precisely what papers a client is entitled 

to. V.R.P.C. 1.16 (d). Williams apparently assumed that the “whole file” approach applies. 
3

or former client reasonably needs”—such as originals of a will or deed—Aguiar alleges no 

reasonable need for any originals. Id. § 46(3).

Aguiar also seems to suggest that he is entitled to the iPod which he alleges 

Williams took back, because it was purchased with federal funds under the Criminal 

Justice Act appointment by which Williams was representing him. He cites no authority 

for this argument, and the court is aware of none. 

Order

Williams’ motion for summary judgment is granted. 

Dated at Burlington this 20th day of August, 2019.

 

___________________

Helen M. Toor

Superior Court Judge

Notifications:

Plaintiff Stephen Aguiar

Kurt A. Kuehl (ERN 4361), Attorney for Defendant David Williams

vtadsbat