# Web forms, chat and people who aren't clients yet: what Oregon RPC 1.18 says > What Oregon RPC 1.18 says about information from prospective clients, and how OSB Formal Opinions 2026-207 and 2026-208 and Washington guidance apply it to consultations, website forms and chatbots. Law + AI Daily by TacticalMS · Ethics and risk · Published 2026-11-06 Canonical: https://tacticalms.dev/blog/oregon-rpc-1-18-prospective-clients-web-forms-chat ## The short version - Oregon RPC 1.18 says a lawyer who learns information from a prospective client may not use or reveal it, even when no client-lawyer relationship follows [1]. - If a lawyer received information that "could be significantly harmful" to the prospective client, the lawyer and the firm are generally barred from the other side of that matter, unless an exception in RPC 1.18(d) applies [1, 2]. - OSB Formal Opinion 2026-208 says lawyers who get enough information about a prospective client through a chatbot should promptly enter that person into their conflict management system [3]. - Washington guidance distinguishes solicited website inquiries from unsolicited, one-way messages; it is Washington's guidance, not Oregon's [4, 5]. Oregon RPC 1.18 protects people who consult a lawyer about hiring them, even if they never become clients: the lawyer may not use or reveal what they learned, and information that "could be significantly harmful" can bar the lawyer and the firm from the other side of the matter [1]. The Oregon State Bar applied the rule to advance waivers in Formal Opinion 2026-207 and to website chatbots in Formal Opinion 2026-208, both approved by the Board of Governors in February 2026 [2, 3]. This post sets out what the rule and those opinions say, plus Washington guidance on website inquiries for firms with clients on both sides of the Columbia [4, 5]. ## What Oregon RPC 1.18 says, paragraph by paragraph The Oregon State Bar's published Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct, as effective September 3, 2026, contain RPC 1.18 under the title "Duties to Prospective Client" [1]. The rule has four paragraphs [1]. - **(a) Who is a prospective client.** "A person who consults with a lawyer about the possibility of forming a client-lawyer relationship with respect to a matter is a prospective client" [1]. - **(b) Confidentiality.** Even when no client-lawyer relationship follows, a lawyer who learned information from a prospective client "shall not use or reveal that information," except as Oregon RPC 1.9 would permit for a former client's information [1]. - **(c) Conflicts.** The lawyer may not represent a client with interests materially adverse to the prospective client in the same or a substantially related matter if the lawyer received information "that could be significantly harmful to that person in the matter," except as paragraph (d) provides [1]. If that lawyer is disqualified, no lawyer in the firm may knowingly take on or continue the matter, again except as paragraph (d) provides [1]. - **(d) Two ways the representation can still proceed.** Representation is permissible if both the affected client and the prospective client give informed consent, confirmed in writing [1]. It is also permissible if the consulted lawyer took reasonable measures to avoid more disqualifying information than was reasonably necessary to decide whether to take the matter, the disqualified lawyer is timely screened, and written notice is promptly given to the prospective client [1]. The rule's note in the OSB publication says RPC 1.18 has no counterpart in the old Oregon Code and is consistent with the lawyer-client privilege rule in OEC 503(1)(a) [1]. The note also says paragraph (d) was amended in 2009 to conform to ABA Model Rule 1.18, except for its prohibition on apportioning part of the fee to the disqualified lawyer [1]. ## What OSB Formal Opinion 2026-207 says about advance waivers Oregon State Bar Formal Opinion 2026-207, "Advance Waiver of Prospective Client Conflicts," addresses a lawyer who asks a prospective client to sign an advance waiver during a consultation [2]. In the opinion's facts, the prospective client hires someone else, and the opposing party then asks the consulted lawyer's firm to represent it in the same dispute [2]. The opinion's conclusion on whether the lawyer, and another lawyer at the firm, may take that representation is "Yes, qualified" [2]. The analysis in Formal Opinion 2026-207 runs in steps [2]: 1. Is the new representation materially adverse to the prospective client in the same or a substantially related matter? Here it was, because the new client is the opposing party in the same dispute [2]. 2. Did the lawyer receive "disqualifying information"? The opinion says "significantly harmful" has not been defined by the Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct or related disciplinary decisions [2]. It lists factors that may be considered, quoting a 2023 federal decision from the District of Oregon: whether the information is publicly available, would likely come out in discovery, relates to motives, strategies or weaknesses, or could affect settlement proposals [2]. 3. If no disqualifying information was received, Formal Opinion 2026-207 says the lawyer and firm may proceed [2]. It describes limiting the first consultation to what the lawyer needs to decide whether to take the matter, "such as information about the parties" and the general subject of the dispute, as one way to avoid or reduce that risk [2]. 4. If disqualifying information was received, the opinion says representation needs one of the RPC 1.18(d) exceptions [2]. Assuming the advance waiver is enforceable, it says the firm may proceed if the new client also gives informed consent in writing; alternatively, the screening route is available if its conditions are met [2]. Formal Opinion 2026-207 assumes the prospective client consulted in good faith and was not "taint-shopping" [2]. For enforceability of advance waivers, it points to OSB Formal Opinion 2025-206 [2]. ## What OSB Formal Opinion 2026-208 says about chatbots and intake Oregon State Bar Formal Opinion 2026-208, "Chatbots and AI Agent Communications," lists RPC 1.18 among the rules that chatbots used for marketing and intake implicate, describing it as covering duties to prospective clients "from a confidentiality and conflicts perspective" [3]. The whole opinion is summarized in a [guide to Formal Opinion 2026-208](/osb-formal-opinion-2026-208) and in an [earlier post on Oregon's AI ethics opinions](/blog/oregon-ai-ethics-opinions-explained) [3]. On prospective clients specifically, Formal Opinion 2026-208 says [3]: - Under RPC 1.18(b), lawyers may not use or reveal information prospective clients communicate through a chatbot, except as former-client information could be used or revealed [3]. - Under RPC 1.18(c), after receiving "disqualifying information" through a chatbot, lawyers may not represent a client materially adverse to that person in the same or a substantially related matter, except as RPC 1.18(d) permits [3]. - It is important that lawyers who obtain enough information about a prospective client through a chatbot "promptly enter the prospective client into their conflict management system" [3]. - Because a chatbot that sounds like a lawyer could lead someone to believe a relationship had formed, the opinion calls appropriate, clearly provided disclaimers on the website and chatbot important [3]. ## How Washington guidance treats website inquiries Firms that also practice in Washington work under Washington's version of RPC 1.18, which the Washington State Bar News column says Washington adopted in 2006 and amended in 2016 [5]. The guidance below is Washington's, not Oregon's. Washington State Bar Association Advisory Opinion 2080, issued in 2006 when Washington's RPC 1.18 was still a proposal, considered a firm website that solicits inquiries [4]. It said that if information is solicited from a prospective client, it must be kept confidential "unless specific and understandable disclaimers are also posted" that negate the person's expectations [4]. Among the measures it listed was limiting the information accepted "to the bare essentials needed to perform a conflict check" [4]. The opinion notes that WSBA advisory opinions are not individually approved by the Board of Governors and do not reflect the bar's official position [4]. The March 13, 2025 Ethics and the Law column in Washington State Bar News explains that, under Comment 10 to Washington RPC 1.18, a unilateral communication such as an unsolicited email does not generally make the sender a prospective client [5]. The column quotes Washington's Comment 2: a consultation is likely to have occurred when a lawyer specifically invites information about a potential representation without clear warnings that limit the lawyer's obligations [5]. The column also notes that firms cannot avoid prospective-client conflicts by having nonlawyer staff handle first contacts, since lawyers are generally responsible for staff under RPC 5.3 [5]. Citing ABA Formal Opinion 510, it says that once a lawyer has any basis to decline, stopping the inquiry places the lawyer in the best position to avoid imputation [5]. ## What the sources leave open Formal Opinion 2026-207 says whether information is "significantly harmful" is a fact-specific question, and its own facts did not settle it [2]. The Washington column notes that the Oregon Supreme Court in *In re Knappenberger* (2005) analyzed a two-hour paid consultation under the former-client rule rather than the prospective-client rule [5]. Whether a particular form, chat or call created a prospective-client relationship depends on the facts; a licensed Oregon attorney or the Oregon State Bar's ethics resources can address a specific situation [1, 2]. ## Common questions ### Who is a prospective client under Oregon RPC 1.18? Oregon RPC 1.18(a) says a person who consults with a lawyer about the possibility of forming a client-lawyer relationship with respect to a matter is a prospective client [1]. ### Does Oregon define "significantly harmful" information under RPC 1.18? No. OSB Formal Opinion 2026-207 says the term has not been defined by the Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct or related disciplinary decisions, and lists factors a fact-specific analysis may consider [2]. ### Does RPC 1.18 apply to information collected by a law firm chatbot? OSB Formal Opinion 2026-208 says RPC 1.18(b) bars lawyers from using or revealing information prospective clients communicate through a chatbot, except as former-client information could be used or revealed [3]. ### Can a firm still take the other side after a prospective client shared harmful information? Oregon RPC 1.18(d) allows it if both the affected client and the prospective client give informed consent confirmed in writing, or if the consulted lawyer limited exposure, is timely screened, and written notice is promptly given [1]. ## Sources 1. [Oregon Rules of Professional Conduct (as effective September 3, 2026)](https://www.osbar.org/_docs/rulesregs/orpc.pdf), Oregon State Bar, 2026 2. [Formal Opinion No 2026-207: Advance Waiver of Prospective Client Conflicts](https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2026-207.pdf), Oregon State Bar, February 2026 3. [Formal Opinion No 2026-208: Chatbots and AI Agent Communications](https://www.osbar.org/_docs/ethics/2026-208.pdf), Oregon State Bar, February 2026 4. [Advisory Opinion 2080: Duty of confidentiality for inquiries through a law firm's web site](https://ao.wsba.org/print.aspx?ID=1553), Washington State Bar Association, 2006 5. [RPC 1.18: Duties to Prospective Clients](https://wabarnews.org/2025/03/13/rpc-1-18-duties-to-prospective-clients/), Washington State Bar News (Ethics and the Law column), March 13, 2025 --- Not legal advice. This post is general information about law and technology, not legal advice. It does not create an attorney-client relationship, and TacticalMS is not a law firm. Laws, rules and ethics opinions change; check the cited sources and talk with a licensed Oregon attorney about any specific situation.