In 2012, the American Bar Association amended Comment 8 to Model Rule 1.1 to include a simple but transformative addition: the duty of competence requires lawyers to keep abreast of "the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology." Fourteen years later, more than 40 states have adopted this language — and its implications for document redaction are becoming increasingly concrete.
The technology competence amendment does not mention redaction specifically. It does not need to. When an attorney files a document with a black box overlay that can be copy-pasted to reveal the underlying text, that attorney has demonstrated a failure to understand the technology they are using. That failure has ethics consequences.
What the Technology Competence Duty Actually Requires
Model Rule 1.1 requires that a lawyer provide competent representation, which includes "the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation." Comment 8 clarifies that maintaining competence requires keeping current with changes in the law and its practice, "including the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology."
This is not a suggestion. In the states that have adopted this language, technology competence is an enforceable professional obligation. An attorney who does not understand how their PDF editor handles redaction — and who consequently files documents with extractable "redacted" text — has violated their duty of competence just as surely as an attorney who misapplies a statute of limitations.
The standard is reasonableness, not perfection. Attorneys are not required to become software engineers. They are required to understand the basic capabilities and limitations of the tools they use in practice. For redaction, this means understanding the difference between visual annotation and permanent text removal.
The Intersection of Rule 1.1 and Rule 1.6
Rule 1.6 requires attorneys to protect confidential client information. Comment 18 to Rule 1.6 specifies that attorneys must "make reasonable efforts to prevent the inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure of, or unauthorized access to, information relating to the representation of a client."
When a redaction failure exposes client information, it triggers both Rule 1.1 (the attorney lacked competence in the technology used) and Rule 1.6 (the attorney failed to make reasonable efforts to protect confidential information). This dual exposure makes redaction failures particularly serious from a disciplinary perspective.
Rule 1.1 liability: The attorney did not understand how their redaction tool worked and used it in a way that did not accomplish its intended purpose.
Rule 1.6 liability: The attorney's technological incompetence resulted in the disclosure of confidential client information to third parties.
Rule 5.1 and 5.3 liability: For supervising attorneys and partners, a redaction failure by a subordinate attorney or paralegal may also implicate the supervisory responsibilities under Rules 5.1 and 5.3 if the firm lacked adequate training and supervision regarding redaction technology.
States That Have Adopted Technology Competence
As of 2026, more than 40 states have adopted some form of the technology competence amendment to their versions of Rule 1.1. The specific language varies, but the core obligation is consistent: attorneys must understand the technology they use.
States that have been particularly active in enforcement include:
- California adopted the technology competence duty in its Rules of Professional Conduct effective November 2018 and has issued formal ethics opinions specifically addressing electronic document handling
- New York adopted the duty and has addressed technology competence in multiple bar association ethics opinions
- Florida adopted the duty and its bar has published technology-specific CLE requirements
- Illinois has addressed technology competence in the context of electronic filing and document production
Even states that have not formally adopted the amendment have recognized technology competence as an implicit component of existing competence standards through ethics opinions and disciplinary actions.
How Courts Are Treating Redaction Failures
Courts have not been shy about sanctioning attorneys for redaction failures, and the sanctions are increasingly framed in terms of technological incompetence:
Sanctions for improperly redacted filings. Courts have imposed monetary sanctions ranging from several thousand to tens of thousands of dollars on attorneys who file documents with extractable "redacted" text. The courts have emphasized that counsel bears the responsibility to verify that redaction is effective before filing.
Bar complaints and disciplinary action. State bar associations have investigated and disciplined attorneys for redaction failures that resulted in the disclosure of confidential client information. These investigations typically examine whether the attorney had adequate training, used appropriate tools, and implemented verification procedures.
Malpractice exposure. A redaction failure that causes harm to a client — such as the disclosure of sensitive medical information, financial data, or information about minor children — creates malpractice liability. The standard of care for document redaction is evolving rapidly, and courts are increasingly unwilling to accept "I didn't know the black box didn't work" as a defense.
What Reasonable Technology Competence Looks Like for Redaction
Based on ethics opinions, disciplinary actions, and court rulings, the emerging standard for redaction competence includes:
Understanding the difference between annotation and redaction. Attorneys must know that drawing tools, highlighting, and text boxes in PDF editors do not remove underlying text. Only purpose-built redaction tools permanently destroy the hidden text layer.
Using appropriate tools. The duty of competence requires using tools designed for the task. Using a PDF annotation tool for redaction is analogous to using a consumer-grade lock for a safe deposit box — it creates the appearance of security without the substance.
Verifying redaction effectiveness. After applying redaction, attorneys must verify that the underlying text has actually been removed. This means attempting to select, copy, and extract text from redacted areas. A visual inspection is not sufficient.
Removing metadata. Competent redaction includes removing document metadata — author names, revision history, comments, tracked changes — that may contain or reveal the information being redacted.
Training staff. Under Rules 5.1 and 5.3, attorneys with supervisory authority must ensure that paralegals, legal assistants, and junior attorneys who perform redaction understand proper procedures and tools.
Maintaining written procedures. A firm-wide redaction policy that specifies approved tools, prohibited methods, verification steps, and training requirements demonstrates the systematic approach that regulators expect.
The Malpractice Insurance Dimension
Legal malpractice insurers are paying attention to technology competence. Many now include technology-related questions on their applications, asking about data security practices, document management procedures, and technology training programs. A redaction failure that results in a malpractice claim may also trigger policy exclusions related to failure to implement reasonable security measures.
Firms that can demonstrate a documented redaction workflow, appropriate tool selection, staff training, and verification procedures are in a significantly better position — both for avoiding claims and for defending them if they arise.
Conclusion
The technology competence duty is not abstract. It creates specific, enforceable obligations that apply directly to how attorneys handle document redaction. Using a black box overlay in a PDF editor is not just a technical error — it is an ethics violation in the majority of U.S. jurisdictions. Attorneys who understand this and adopt proper tools and procedures protect their clients, their licenses, and their firms. Those who do not are accepting a risk that grows more expensive with every disciplinary action and court sanction.