Representing Celebrities or Not, Lawyers Should Consider These Issues of Confidential Settlements
The recent celebrity scandals involving confidential settlements that purportedly concealed wrongdoing for many years have caused some to question whether confidential settlements strike the appropriate balance between the interests of the settling parties and the public's right to information identifying potential wrongful actors.
December 04, 2017 at 10:09 AM
19 minute read
Shari L. Klevens (left) and Alanna Clair, Dentons US
Confidentiality clauses—discussed in news reports of recent celebrity sex harassment scandals—have become a standard provision for parties entering settlement agreements. Attorneys routinely advise clients on the pros and cons of confidential settlements and whether confidentiality should be an essential term or a “deal breaker” for a particular settlement.
A client may prefer a confidential settlement for a variety of reasons. For example, a defendant may seek confidentiality to avoid the perception of the settlement as a “win” for the plaintiff. With public disclosure of a settlement, other potential claimants could be encouraged to bring suit without bearing in mind the facts and issues particular to their claims. A plaintiff, on the other hand, may prefer a confidential settlement as a means to prevent the release of private information, such as any personal or sensitive facts underlying the plaintiff's claims.
Attorneys handling confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements encounter unique risks, both for themselves and their clients. By taking these considerations into account, attorneys can take steps to preserve confidences in settlement while still meeting their obligations under the rules.
Policy Considerations for Client
The specific circumstances of the settlement may guide the attorney and the client when considering the scope or application of any confidentiality provision as a requisite for settlement.
Confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements can include a range of restrictions. On one end of the spectrum, the clause may attempt to preclude disclosure of the nature of the dispute, the facts underlying the claims and any discovery exchanged. This type of clause may be less effective if litigation has already commenced and publicly available pleadings and documents disclose the parties' dispute. On the other end of the spectrum, the confidentiality language may refer only to the terms of the settlement itself. This may bar a settling party from divulging the amount of any settlement payment, or it may cover all issues discussed in negotiations.
The recent celebrity scandals involving confidential settlements that purportedly concealed wrongdoing for many years have caused some to question whether confidential settlements strike the appropriate balance between the interests of the settling parties and the public's right to information identifying potential wrongful actors.
However, in most circumstances, confidentiality is a bargaining chip in negotiations like any other. Public policy concerns can be addressed by counsel representing the accuser, who is additionally entitled to privacy and may believe that confidentiality is in her own best interest as well (in light of the other terms of settlement). This public policy concern merits discussion with clients before entering a confidential settlement. The client can make the ultimate choice.
Ethical Considerations for Counsel
Settlement agreements are generally signed only by the parties in dispute. Still, these agreements often define a party to include agents and representatives, including a party's attorneys. Therefore, even if not a direct party to the settlement, an attorney may be bound by the confidentiality provisions of a settlement as an agent of the client, in addition to the attorney's general obligation to maintain client confidences under the ethical rules.
Notably, in some circumstances, the ethical rules that govern attorney conduct may conflict with the terms of a settlement agreement.
For example, Rule 5.6(b) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct restricts an attorney from offering or making “an agreement in which a restriction on the lawyer's right to practice is part of the settlement of a controversy between private parties.” The Rule comments explain that Rule 5.6(b) “prohibits a lawyer from agreeing not to represent other persons in connection with settling a claim on behalf of a client.”
Other states have enforced confidential settlements that preclude counsel from disclosing specific terms of settlement but have often stopped short of barring counsel from using general knowledge about the case or the party in representing other clients. Though Georgia has not yet issued an opinion interpreting Rule 5.6(b), attorneys can be mindful of confidentiality clauses that may attempt to bind counsel to terms that would violate the Rules of Professional Conduct. An overbroad provision may prove ineffective and may leave a gap that the client did not intend.
Liability for Breach of Confidentiality
Attorneys are generally not permitted to be whistleblowers of misconduct they have learned about in the course of representing a client under Rule 1.6 of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct. There are certain exceptions to that Rule in that attorneys may reveal confidential information to prevent harm to another as a result of a client's criminal conduct or third party criminal conduct. By agreeing to be bound by a confidentiality agreement, however, an attorney who discloses confidential information—even where it is the confidential information of an opponent rather than a client—may face civil liability.
Even a mistaken breach of a confidentiality provision can invalidate an entire settlement, whether the breach is a result of the conduct of the client or the attorney. Many attorneys will discuss with their clients the importance of confidentiality in complying with the terms of settlement, particularly in the age of social media.
Upon a breach, the breaching party could be required to return any settlement proceeds and could be subject to liability for breach of contract. The settlement agreement might even provide for liquidated damages in the event that a party breaches confidentiality.
A confidentiality clause may provide limited situations in which disclosure of the protected information is not actionable. There is generally an exception to confidentiality where disclosure is required by law or demanded by subpoena in another judicial proceeding. In addition, parties often agree that terms of settlement can be disclosed to attorneys, accountants, insurance companies and other professional advisers, as necessary, for business purposes.
Notwithstanding the risks, confidential settlement agreements can protect a client's interest and lead to a favorable result.
Shari L. Klevens is a partner at Dentons US in Atlanta and Washington and serves on the firm's U.S. board of directors. She represents and advises lawyers and insurers on complex claims and is co-chair of Dentons' global insurance sector team.
Alanna Clair is a senior managing associate at Dentons US in Washington and focuses on professional liability defense. Shari and Alanna are co-authors of “The Lawyer's Handbook: Ethics Compliance and Claim Avoidance.”
Shari L. Klevens (left) and Alanna Clair,
Confidentiality clauses—discussed in news reports of recent celebrity sex harassment scandals—have become a standard provision for parties entering settlement agreements. Attorneys routinely advise clients on the pros and cons of confidential settlements and whether confidentiality should be an essential term or a “deal breaker” for a particular settlement.
A client may prefer a confidential settlement for a variety of reasons. For example, a defendant may seek confidentiality to avoid the perception of the settlement as a “win” for the plaintiff. With public disclosure of a settlement, other potential claimants could be encouraged to bring suit without bearing in mind the facts and issues particular to their claims. A plaintiff, on the other hand, may prefer a confidential settlement as a means to prevent the release of private information, such as any personal or sensitive facts underlying the plaintiff's claims.
Attorneys handling confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements encounter unique risks, both for themselves and their clients. By taking these considerations into account, attorneys can take steps to preserve confidences in settlement while still meeting their obligations under the rules.
Policy Considerations for Client
The specific circumstances of the settlement may guide the attorney and the client when considering the scope or application of any confidentiality provision as a requisite for settlement.
Confidentiality clauses in settlement agreements can include a range of restrictions. On one end of the spectrum, the clause may attempt to preclude disclosure of the nature of the dispute, the facts underlying the claims and any discovery exchanged. This type of clause may be less effective if litigation has already commenced and publicly available pleadings and documents disclose the parties' dispute. On the other end of the spectrum, the confidentiality language may refer only to the terms of the settlement itself. This may bar a settling party from divulging the amount of any settlement payment, or it may cover all issues discussed in negotiations.
The recent celebrity scandals involving confidential settlements that purportedly concealed wrongdoing for many years have caused some to question whether confidential settlements strike the appropriate balance between the interests of the settling parties and the public's right to information identifying potential wrongful actors.
However, in most circumstances, confidentiality is a bargaining chip in negotiations like any other. Public policy concerns can be addressed by counsel representing the accuser, who is additionally entitled to privacy and may believe that confidentiality is in her own best interest as well (in light of the other terms of settlement). This public policy concern merits discussion with clients before entering a confidential settlement. The client can make the ultimate choice.
Ethical Considerations for Counsel
Settlement agreements are generally signed only by the parties in dispute. Still, these agreements often define a party to include agents and representatives, including a party's attorneys. Therefore, even if not a direct party to the settlement, an attorney may be bound by the confidentiality provisions of a settlement as an agent of the client, in addition to the attorney's general obligation to maintain client confidences under the ethical rules.
Notably, in some circumstances, the ethical rules that govern attorney conduct may conflict with the terms of a settlement agreement.
For example, Rule 5.6(b) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct restricts an attorney from offering or making “an agreement in which a restriction on the lawyer's right to practice is part of the settlement of a controversy between private parties.” The Rule comments explain that Rule 5.6(b) “prohibits a lawyer from agreeing not to represent other persons in connection with settling a claim on behalf of a client.”
Other states have enforced confidential settlements that preclude counsel from disclosing specific terms of settlement but have often stopped short of barring counsel from using general knowledge about the case or the party in representing other clients. Though Georgia has not yet issued an opinion interpreting Rule 5.6(b), attorneys can be mindful of confidentiality clauses that may attempt to bind counsel to terms that would violate the Rules of Professional Conduct. An overbroad provision may prove ineffective and may leave a gap that the client did not intend.
Liability for Breach of Confidentiality
Attorneys are generally not permitted to be whistleblowers of misconduct they have learned about in the course of representing a client under Rule 1.6 of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct. There are certain exceptions to that Rule in that attorneys may reveal confidential information to prevent harm to another as a result of a client's criminal conduct or third party criminal conduct. By agreeing to be bound by a confidentiality agreement, however, an attorney who discloses confidential information—even where it is the confidential information of an opponent rather than a client—may face civil liability.
Even a mistaken breach of a confidentiality provision can invalidate an entire settlement, whether the breach is a result of the conduct of the client or the attorney. Many attorneys will discuss with their clients the importance of confidentiality in complying with the terms of settlement, particularly in the age of social media.
Upon a breach, the breaching party could be required to return any settlement proceeds and could be subject to liability for breach of contract. The settlement agreement might even provide for liquidated damages in the event that a party breaches confidentiality.
A confidentiality clause may provide limited situations in which disclosure of the protected information is not actionable. There is generally an exception to confidentiality where disclosure is required by law or demanded by subpoena in another judicial proceeding. In addition, parties often agree that terms of settlement can be disclosed to attorneys, accountants, insurance companies and other professional advisers, as necessary, for business purposes.
Notwithstanding the risks, confidential settlement agreements can protect a client's interest and lead to a favorable result.
Shari L. Klevens is a partner at
Alanna Clair is a senior managing associate at
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllBusiness Breakups: Why Business and Commercial Cases Are Well-Suited to Mediation
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1First California Zantac Jury Ends in Mistrial
- 2Democrats Give Up Circuit Court Picks for Trial Judges in Reported Deal with GOP
- 3Trump Taps Former Fla. Attorney General for AG
- 4Newsom Names Two Judges to Appellate Courts in San Francisco, Orange County
- 5Biden Has Few Ways to Protect His Environmental Legacy, Say Lawyers, Advocates
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250