Opinion ID: 2625111
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Undisclosed electronic recording is lawful and valuable.

Text: The undisclosed recording by one party to a conversation is lawful in the state of Alaska. Nationally, the ethics of undisclosed recording by lawyers have been the subject of debate and conflicting rulings. But there is now a consensus that undisclosed recording is not unethical. [67] The American Bar Association issued an opinion in 1974 ruling that a lawyer may not ethically electronically record a conversation without prior knowledge of all parties to the conversation. [68] After much comment and criticism, this opinion was withdrawn, and a new opinion was issued in 2001. The following excerpt from the 2001 opinion explains not only the rationale of the 1974 opinion but also the reasons why it was withdrawn: Criticism of Opinion 337 has occurred in three areas. First, the belief that nonconsensual taping of conversations is inherently deceitful, embraced by this Committee in 1974, is not universally accepted today. The overwhelming majority of states permit recording by consent of only one party to the conversation. Surreptitious recording of conversations is a widespread practice by law enforcement, private investigators and journalists, and the courts universally accept evidence acquired by such techniques. Devices for the recording of telephone conversations on one's own phone readily are available and widely are used. Thus, even though recording of a conversation without disclosure may to many people offend a sense of honor and fair play, it is questionable whether anyone today justifiably relies on an expectation that a conversation is not being recorded by the other party, absent a special relationship with or conduct by that party inducing a belief that the conversation will not be recorded. Second, there are circumstances in which requiring disclosure of the recording of a conversation may defeat a legitimate and even necessary activity. For that reason, even those authorities that have agreed with the basic proposition of Opinion 337 have tended to recognize numerous exceptions. The State Bar of Arizona, for example, listed four exceptions to the ethical prohibition for such things as documenting criminal utterances (threats, obscene calls, etc.); documenting conversations with potential witnesses to protect against later perjury; documenting conversations for self-protection of the lawyer; and recording when specifically authorized by statute, court rule or court order. Other ethics committees have excepted recordings by criminal defense lawyers, reasoning that the commonly accepted law enforcement exception otherwise would give prosecutors an unfair advantage. Exceptions also have been recognized for testers in investigations of housing discrimination and trademark infringement. And the Ohio Supreme Court, although finding nonconsensual recordings by lawyers generally impermissible, has noted an exception for extraordinary circumstances as well as for investigations by prosecutors and criminal defense lawyers. A degree of uncertainty is common in the application of rules of ethics, but an ethical prohibition that is qualified by so many varying exceptions and such frequent disagreement as to the viability of the rule as a basis for professional discipline, is highly troubling. We think the proper approach to the question of legal but nonconsensual recordings by lawyers is not a general prohibition with certain exceptions, but a prohibition of the conduct only where it is accompanied by other circumstances that make it unethical.[ [69] ] The Ethics Committee of the Alaska Bar Association, which had previously adopted the American Bar Association's 1974 opinion, followed the lead of the American Bar Association and in 2003 issued a new ethics opinion reflecting the current views of the American Bar Association. [70] The superior court recognized that recording an interview is of considerable value both in preparing and presenting a case. The court also recognized that the right to conduct an undisclosed electronic recording is important because some witnesses refuse to be interviewed if an interview is recorded. We quote here the court's findings with respect to the interests served by the electronic recording of interviews and the effect of requiring a witness to consent in advance to recording. 39. Tape recording interviews is an important investigative tool. A recording captures the exact words and tone of the speaker and [eliminates] any error in interpretation of notes or of memory. 40. Taping also enables the defense investigator to make a record to protect himself or herself against false accusations of misconduct. Again there are no statistics, but false accusations have been made against defense investigators. 41. Defense representatives consider the ability to conduct secret taping an important investigative tool, because some victims and witnesses are willing to talk but not willing to talk on tape, or not willing to talk as candidly. Witnesses from the criminal milieu and people connected with the prosecution are especially unlikely to agree to talk on tape. These are the people most likely either to deny what they said or to make a false claim against the defense investigator. Another category of people unlikely to agree to talk on tape are those whose statements are self-incriminatory. 42. Asking to tape an interview causes some people who had agreed to an interview to change their minds and to refuse to proceed, even after the investigator says she will put the recorder away. 43. Former Commissioner of Public Safety Del Smith concurred with the defense investigators that some people will not talk on tape, and some suffer mike fright and find it harder to talk if a recorder is on. 44. Police investigators use tapes secretly and openly. Police officers use secret tape recordings to protect their reputation and to protect themselves against civil liability. 45. Civil investigators also conduct secret tape recordings. Domestic violence victims have made secret tapes of their batterers and have used such tapes in court. 46. In the expert opinion of Joe Austin, the prohibition on secret taping by the defense has a severe impact on the ability to conduct an investigation.[ [71] ] The court in its conclusions of law made the following further observations: Taping interviews is a valuable investigative tool. Tapes preserve the exact words and tone of both questions and answers, eliminating any error in recollection or interpretation. The right to engage in undisclosed tape recording is an important investigative tool, because some people will agree to be interviewed but will not agree to a tape recorded interview. Asking for permission to tape record results in some witnesses refusing to continue the interview and changes the character of other interviews. Law enforcement officers use secret tape recordings, as do civil investigators. In our view the court's findings and conclusions concerning the value of electronically recording interviews, including undisclosed recording, are both well considered and correct. They are also consistent with our case law, as we discuss below.