• Home
  • About
  • Terms
  • RSS

Lawyer Who Never Talks to a Client Still May Owe Duty of Confidentiality

April 16th, 2009 | By EQTeam

A Hinshaw Lawyers for the Profession® Alert

D.C. Bar Association Ethics Opinion 346 (2009)

Brief Summary

A lawyer who receives a prospective client’s confidences, as well as permission to talk about the matter with other lawyers not in the same firm, is an agent of the client when talking to the other lawyers. The other lawyers therefore owe the prospective client a duty of confidentiality.

Complete Summary

The question presented was, when Lawyer A — with the permission of a prospective client — discusses the prospective client’s matter with Lawyer B from a different firm, does Lawyer B owe a duty of confidentially to the prospective client? The D.C. Bar Legal Ethics Committee opined that Lawyer B owes a duty of confidentiality under either Rule 1.6 (confidentiality of information) or Rule 1.18 (duties to prospective clients).

Rule 1.18 imposes a duty of confidentiality on lawyers who “ha[ve] had discussions with a prospective client[.]” The committee, however, found that a discussion of Rule 1.18 was not strictly necessary because Lawyer B would owe a duty of confidentiality under Rule 1.6 standing alone. According to Comment [9] of Rule 1.6, the duty attaches when a lawyer “agrees to consider whether a client-lawyer relationship shall be established.”

Alternatively, under the “discussion” requirement of Rule 1.18, Lawyer B would owe a duty of confidentiality because Lawyer A was the prospective client’s agent. In reaching this conclusion, the committee invoked an attorney-client privilege analogy, noting that privilege generally attaches to discussions between lawyers and clients agents so long as the client trusts the agent and the use of an agent is reasonably necessary. The committee opined that this “intermediary rule” should apply here as well.

Significance of Opinion

This opinion adds a level of protection to client confidences, but it also adds a potential level of complexity or liability for lawyers in referral situations.

Leave a Comment »

Leave a Reply

Read Our Comments Policy First

  •  

Recent Posts

  • Ohio Ethics Opinion Allows Advertising by Text Message
  • Oregon Issues Ethics Opinion on Accessing Information on Social Networking Website
  • Update: North Carolina and Buying Another Lawyer’s Name
  • Want to Buy Another’s Name? Wisconsin Court of Appeals Addresses Keyword Search Terms
  • Professionalism: Appreciating the Practice of Law

Categories

  • ABA
  • Advertising
  • Arbitration
  • Attorney Fees
  • Attorney Pay
  • Attorney-Client Privilege
  • Bar Admission
  • Bar Discipline
  • Business Transactions with Clients
  • Campaign Finance
  • CLE
  • Collaborative Law
  • Communication
  • Comparative Ethics
  • Confidentiality
  • Conflicts of Interest
  • Criminal Law
  • Disbarred Lawyers
  • Discipline Proceedings
  • Discovery Disputes
  • Due Process
  • E-Discovery
  • Electronic Issues
  • Email
  • Engagement Letters
  • Ethics Rules
  • Fee Disputes
  • Fixed Fees
  • Impairment
  • In-house counsel
  • Inadvertent Production
  • International Legal Practice
  • Judicial Ethics
  • Law Firm Risk Management
  • Law Firms
  • Law School
  • Lawyers Helping Lawyers Award
  • Lawyers/Judges and Accountants
  • Lawyers/Judges and Doctors
  • Legal Assistant
  • Legal Malpractice
  • Legal Malpractice and Risk Management Conference
  • Management Issues
  • Metadata
  • Missouri
  • Multiple Client
  • Neglect
  • Oregon
  • Paralegal
  • Personal Conflicts
  • Positional or Issue Conflicts
  • Practice Tools
  • Pro Se
  • Professionalism
  • Proposed Legislation
  • Prosecutor Ethics
  • Reciprocity (Admission by Motion)
  • Represented Parties
  • Rules of Professional Conduct
  • Sanctions Analysis
  • Sexual Relations with Clients
  • Social Networking Sites
  • State Specific
  • Supreme Court
  • Suspended Lawyers
  • Trial Publicity
  • Trust Accounts
  • Unauthorized practice of law
  • Uncategorized
  • Washington
  • Withdrawal

Tags

ABA Ethics Rules Advertising Attorney-Client Privilege Attorney Advertising Attorney Fees Bankruptcy california CLE client communication Client Trust Account Cloud Computing Confidentiality Conflicts Conflicts of Interest Criminal Law Discipline Disqualification E-Discovery Email Employee Theft Engagement Letter Ethics Rules Facebook Fixed Fees Flat Fees Judicial Ethics Lawyer Discipline Lawyer Ethics Lawyer Risk Management Legal Malpractice Metadata New Jersey New York New York Lawyer Ethics Rules Ninth Circuit Pro Se Lawyers Rule 1.10 Rules of Professional Conduct Social Media Social Networking State Legal Ethics Opinions U.S. Supreme Court Unauthorized practice of law UPL www.LMRM.com

Blogroll

  • Avoid a Claim
  • Blazer’s Edge
  • Dennis Kennedy
  • Downey on Law Practice
  • Freivogel on Conflicts
  • Inter Alia
  • Internet Cases
  • Legal Ethics Forum
  • Practical Ediscovery

Copyright © 2008 Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.