When Good Clients Go Bad: Advising Clients to Comply With the Law
Lawyers are likely prohibited from disclosing their clients' potential crimes that will not result in serious bodily harm or financial harm.
January 27, 2020 at 12:47 PM
6 minute read
Lawyers are obligated to uphold the law while also protecting their clients' rights. Indeed, it is routine for lawyers to advise clients on whether their approach to an issue is within the bounds of the law. But what is a lawyer to do if they are aware that a client may be considering taking an illegal step?
Those who practice regularly in criminal or white collar law may deal with this issue with some frequency. But for lawyers who do not specialize in that area, it can be difficult to know how to respond when a client mentions, for instance, that they do not intend to comply with the 2020 census (technically against the law) or that they are hiding money from the IRS.
There can be risk when clients seek advice or propose a course of conduct that could run afoul of the law. Attorneys may feel a tension between helping their client and upholding the law. Here are some tips to consider when asked for advice regarding potentially problematic or illegal conduct.
Provide Competent Representation
The duty of lawyers, both to their clients and the legal system, is to provide competent representation, to abide by client decisions and to exercise diligence within the bounds of the law. These duties are set forth in Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3. Pursuant to their obligation to provide competent representation to clients, lawyers are required to apply the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.
Lawyers are not permitted to advise clients to engage in conduct that lawyers know is also a violation of any law, nor can lawyers assist clients in violating the law. Ga. R. Prof. C. 1.2(d). However, when clients present issues and/or ideas that are potentially contrary to law, lawyers are permitted to provide advice regarding the application or validity of the law at issue. This advice can include an analysis of the risks of potentially violating the law and any punishments that could attach. Id. Thus, lawyers do not have to shut down any conversations that involve a client's consideration of criminal activity—in fact, the lawyer may aid the client to understand the consequences of that conduct, consistent with the lawyer's ethical responsibility.
Don't Go Too Far
Lawyers are not morality counselors, but, as noted above, lawyers are permitted to describe the risks of a client's noncompliance with the law. When providing advice, however, lawyers may evaluate whether they are going beyond merely presenting objective information about the legal ramification of a particular course of action.
Comment 9 to Georgia Rule 1.2 states that, "[t]here is a critical distinction between presenting an analysis of legal aspects of questionable conduct and recommending the means by which a crime or fraud might be committed with impunity." Rule 1.2(d) further distinguishes between attorneys counseling and assisting clients in criminal or fraudulent conduct, which is prohibited, and attorneys who merely discuss the legal consequences of an act or otherwise assist clients in making a good faith effort to determine the scope or meaning of the law, which is permitted.
If an attorney recommends the means by which a crime or fraud might be committed with impunity, this could run afoul of the attorney's ethical obligations.
Maintain Attorney-Client Privilege and Confidentiality
The importance of attorney-client privilege and the confidentiality inherent in the attorney-client relationship cannot be overstated: those protections encourage clients to speak forthrightly and truthfully to lawyers, thereby promoting the disclosure of all relevant information. The creation of the "zone of privacy" stimulates candor and honesty that allows lawyers to provide sound legal advice and effective advocacy. Therefore, it is unsurprising that the rules of professional conduct in a majority of U.S. jurisdictions emphasize the importance of maintaining confidentiality, even when the attorney has knowledge of potentially illegal conduct by a client.
In particular, the rules provide that even when the attorney is aware that a client is about to commit a serious crime, lawyers are not required to disclose that confidential information. Indeed, it is to the attorney's discretion. Georgia Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6(b)(1) provides that a lawyer may, but is not required to, reveal confidential information to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes is necessary to prevent serious injury or death or harm or substantial financial loss to another as a result of client criminal conduct or third party criminal conduct.
Accordingly, lawyers are likely prohibited from disclosing their clients' potential crimes that will not result in serious bodily harm or financial harm under Rule 1.6. Attorneys who do not take their duty of confidentiality seriously may face their own punishment.
Seek Advice From Others
Although lawyers are prohibited from encouraging illegal conduct by their clients, lawyers are not precluded from providing advice regarding what conduct may be deemed illegal or from discussing the potential consequences of illegal activity. For that reason, the fact that a client nonetheless decides on a course of action that is criminal or fraudulent does not usually make the attorney a party to that course of action.
However, these issues can involve a number of complicating factors. Attorneys faced with a client who is considering criminal acts, notwithstanding the attorney's contrary advice, may consider seeking the advice of their firm's in-house counsel or of outside counsel specializing in liability issues to help clarify their role and obligations to their client. Attorneys can also be careful to ensure that they are not assisting the client with any criminal conduct. Indeed, if attorneys provide advice to facilitate or assist with a crime or fraud, the privilege may no longer apply under the crime-fraud exception to privilege (not to mention any other criminal penalties that the attorney could face for facilitating or assisting a client's crime or fraud).
Keeping these tips in mind when providing advice can help lawyers provide competent representation to clients and avoid potential ethical violations—even if their clients are on the wrong path.
Shari L. Klevens is a partner at Dentons in Atlanta and Washington, D.C., 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, also a partner at the firm in Washington, focuses on professional liability and insurance defense. Klevens and Clair are co-authors of "The Lawyer's Handbook: Ethics Compliance and Claim Avoidance" and the 2020 edition of "Georgia Legal Malpractice Law."
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 AllState, Federal Courts in North Carolina Announce Reopening Dates Following Hurricane Helene
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4Trump Files $10B Suit Against CBS in Amarillo Federal Court
- 5Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
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