Lawyers can’t necessarily disclose former client info, even if it’s “publicly available” By Karen Rubin on March 31, 2016 Posted in Confidentiality, How Not to Practice
Most lawyers are aware of their duty to preserve confidential client information. Generally, lawyers may not disclose confidential client information without client consent unless they are authorized to do so by the limited circumstances enumerated …
Mar 31, 2016 · Lawyers can’t necessarily disclose former client info, even if it’s “publicly available” By Karen Rubin on March 31, 2016 Posted in Confidentiality, How Not to Practice You’re chatting with your pals at the bar association cocktail hour, and talk turns to the indictment just handed down against a former city official.
Nov 08, 2010 · [I]f a beneficiary or heir-at-law asks for specific information and the decedent’s lawyer determines that voluntary disclosure of the information would serve the decedent’s interests, the lawyer may disclose that specific information. For example, a lawyer might provide a copy of the decedent’s will or disclose information relating to the execution of a will to a …
See ABA Opinion 09-455 (Oct. 8, 2009). First, the opinion noted that as a general matter, limited disclosure of client information is permissible at an appropriate time during the process when a lawyer is considering moving between firms in order to detect and resolve conflicts. The premise behind permitted disclosure was to protect clients and former clients of both the lateral and …
The ruling in Dougherty revives a union official’s suit against the Pepper Hamilton firm for breach of fiduciary duty. The firm had formerly represented the official when he was subpoenaed by a grand jury as part of a federal bribery investigation. An FBI affidavit was part of that investigation; it was later mistakenly filed on the federal court’s electronic PACER system. Subsequently, the firm represented the Philadelphia Inquirer in defending a defamation suit by the same official against the newspaper. In representing the newspaper, Pepper Hamilton used the FBI affidavit.
In all, the safest thing to do at a cocktail party is to keep quiet about information you know as a result of formerly representing a client, even if you think that it is of “public record.” That’s the best way to steer far clear of any chance of misconduct. And when it comes to “using” information of a former client on behalf of another client, careful analysis is required before you conclude that the “generally known” exception applies.
(a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b).
Disclosure of client information is permissible during the process when a lawyer is considering moving between firms as long as certain limitations are recognized. Any disclosures should be no greater than reasonably necessary to accomplish the purpose of detecting and resolving conflicts and they must not compromise attorney-client privilege or otherwise prejudice a client or former client.
Second, the opinion noted three important principles governing disclosure: 1 Disclosure should be no greater than reasonably necessary to accomplish the purpose of detecting and resolving conflicts. 2 Disclosure must not compromise attorney-client privilege or otherwise prejudice a client or former client. 3 The recipients of such information at the potential new firm may not reveal the information or use it for any purpose other than detecting and resolving conflicts of interest.
Otherwise, the attorney may not reveal any confidential information, without the client’s informed written consent. Usually, a client with diminished capacity could not give such informed consent. Thus, the California attorney may have violated her ethical duties if a report is made to third parties, even if the report is made for ...
Otherwise, the attorney may not reveal any confidential information, without the client’s informed written consent. Usually, a client with diminished capacity could not give such informed consent.
The ethical issue of representing a client with diminished capacity frequently arises in estate and probate practice. Oftentimes, an adult child will bring a parent to an attorney’s office to prepare and execute estate plan documents, because the parent has recently been diagnosed with dementia or “is not doing well.” These are the last-minute preparers. Sometimes the parent has an estate plan, but now the adult child brings the parent into the attorney’s office to make changes. Beside the obvious question of undue influence, there is the question of capacity to execute legal documents. Finally, there are the parents with an estate plan appointing an adult child or children to act as personal representatives of the parents and their estates, and other family members raise claims of mismanagement or abuses of power against the representative. The attorney faced with these situations must ask herself whether the client lacks capacity to make any legal decisions, whether the attorney may represent or continue to represent the client, and/or whether the attorney is authorized to notify others of the client’s risk of harm.
The “normal client-lawyer relationship” involves communicating with the client, informing the client of the progress of his or her case, and maintaining the client’s confidences. How is the attorney to continue representation with a client who cannot effectively communicate with the attorney and/or is unable to understand ...
After all, a conservatorship is essentially restricting the client’s freedom and taking away rights, such as management of one’s own finances. In California, attorneys are limited in what they can do to protect the client, because of the duty to maintain the client’s confidences “at every peril” to the attorney.
As with most state statutes, the California Probate Code sets out guidelines for determining a person’s capacity. Although attorneys are not typically licensed physicians, the criteria set forth in the code provide the basic framework for the attorney to assess the client’s capacity.
While most of what is said between a lawyer and his client is privileged, there are limits to attorney confidentiality. To start with, what you say to an attorney is only protected if that lawyer was working for you in a legal capacity.
In some cases, your lawyer may be ethically required to disclose certain communications or risk disciplinary sanctions or even criminal charges.
You will be legally required to waive the confidentiality of your communications with your attorney if you take disciplinary or legal action against him or her.
Finally, an attorney’s communication to a client is not protected if it is intended to obstruct justice or aid in the commission of a crime. An attorney cannot advise a client to hide or destroy evidence and expect the communication to remain privileged.
(a) A lawyer shall not reveal information acquired during the professional relationship with a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b).
Lawyers in a firm may, in the course of the firm's practice, disclose to each other information relating to a client of the firm, unless the client has instructed that particular information be confined to specified lawyers. Disclosure Adverse to Client.
The rule of client-lawyer confidentiality applies in situations other than those where evidence is sought from the lawyer through compulsion of law. The confidentiality rule, for example, applies not only to matters communicated in confidence by the client but also to all information acquired during the representation, whatever its source.
The confidentiality rule, for example, applies not only to matters communicated in confidence by the client but also to all information acquired during the representation, whatever its source. A lawyer may not disclose such information except as authorized or required by the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law.
Almost without exception, clients come to lawyers in order to determine their rights and what is, in the complex of laws and regulations, deemed to be legal and correct.
Opinion rules that a lawyer may disclose information concerning advice given to a client at a closing in regard to the significance of the client's lien affidavit. RPC 117. Opinion rules that a lawyer may not reveal confidential information concerning his client's contagious disease. RPC 120.
Opinion rules that a lawyer may not take possession of a client's contraband if possession is itself a crime and, unless there is an exception allowing disclosure of confidential information, the lawyer may not disclose confidential information relative to the contraband. 2007 Formal Ethics Opinion 12.