We often focus on the initiation of a representation and the importance of a good engagement agreement to protect both the client and the lawyer. But how that relationship concludes can be just as significant. Failing to clearly communicate to a client that the representation has ended can lead to ethical confusion, muddled duties, and potential liability. That’s why it is essential for lawyers to formally notify clients when their representation has concluded.

The distinction between a current client and a former client isn’t just semantics—it carries ethical and professional consequences. Under the Rules of Professional Conduct, a lawyer owes a wide range of ongoing duties to current clients, including the duty of loyalty, zealous representation, and—crucially—the duty to keep them “reasonably informed” about their matter.

Rule 1.4 of the North Carolina Rules of Professional Conduct makes this clear:

“A lawyer shall… keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter” and “promptly comply with reasonable requests for information.”

This duty encompasses more than just updating a client about pending court dates or filings. Depending on the context, it might include alerting the client to changes in the law or developments that might materially affect their legal rights or obligations—even after a period of dormancy. As long as the client is still considered current, that duty persists.

Consider, for example, the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA). Until FinCEN recently announced that U.S. formed entities no longer were required to comply with the CTA, lawyers were uncertain about their duties to notify clients and former clients. It seemed reasonable to conclude that there was a duty to notify current corporate clients about the existence and filing requirements of the Act. However, it was likely unnecessary to notify former clients. That would be a logistical nightmare. But how do you determine whether someone is a current client when you didn’t send a termination letter? The client might reasonably assume that they are a current client. 

ABA Formal Ethics Opinion 481 directly addressed whether this duty to keep a client reasonably informed continues after the representation ends. The answer? No.

The ABA unequivocally concluded that lawyers do not owe a duty under Rule 1.4 to keep former clientsinformed about legal developments that might affect them. North Carolina does not have an equivalent ethics opinion. However, Rule 1.4 speaks in terms of current clients. Rule 1.4 says nothing about duties to former clients. Rule 1.9 (Duties to Former Clients) says nothing about keeping former clients reasonably informed. It seems likely that the North Carolina State Bar would agree with ABA Formal Ethics Opinion 481.

So, it is important to make clear that a representation has concluded. Not only will the lawyer eliminate the duty to keep all former clients reasonably informed, but it could reduce conflict of interest issues for the lawyer going forward and could have a positive effect on the statute of limitations for any legal malpractice claims. 

Ending a representation may feel like a formality. But skipping this final step can create confusion and open the door to unintentional ethical violations. A representation can be terminated with a simple email or a statement in your final invoice that states that this concludes the representation.  By clearly communicating the conclusion of the representation, a lawyer does more than tidy up their file—they protect their client’s expectations and insulate themselves from future claims of neglect or misconduct.

It’s a simple act that ensures clarity for both sides: your duty has ended, your role is complete, and the client now moves forward, no longer as a current client, but as a former one—with a different set of expectations and obligations on your part.