Client's Needs vs. Attorney's Integrity: An Ethical Tug of War
A client's disclosure of unfavorable or potentially damaging information to his attorney in a confidential setting does not automatically prevent the disclosure of that information.
July 24, 2017 at 10:26 AM
8 minute read
Clients frequently disclose unfavorable or potentially damaging information to their lawyers. Most often, these disclosures are made with the assumption that anything revealed to an attorney must remain privileged, and that it is the lawyer's job to manipulate or conceal certain information in order to achieve a positive result for the client. This is extremely common in the matrimonial context where clients often seek to hide information from their spouses or from the court, such as unreported income, hidden assets, or even an affair. Unlike the client, attorneys are held to a higher standard and are bound by strict ethical rules designed to prevent this kind of gamesmanship. Notwithstanding an attorney's duty to advocate for his or her client, and the existence of the attorney-client privilege, practitioners must remember not to compromise their own integrity by pushing the bounds of the Rules of Professional Conduct for a client.
From the moment a potential client walks in the door, an attorney's ethical obligations are triggered. Therefore, it is important to use caution in communicating with clients and to lay ground rules as soon as possible in order to avoid any potentially tricky issues stemming from an inadvertent disclosure. For example, at the initial client meeting, the attorney may want to limit the questions he or she asks or the information he or she requests to avoid creating an ethical minefield from the outset. Attorneys should also immediately advise their clients about their own ethical duties and important restrictions on the practice of law.
Specifically, clients must understand that while conversations with their attorney are generally protected by the attorney-client privilege, that privilege is not absolute. In a situation where the client is trying to push the attorney's ethical boundaries by requesting assistance not permitted by law, RPC 1.4 provides protection by requiring the attorney to “advise the client of the relevant limitations on the lawyer's conduct.” This is the first step in avoiding an ethical conflict with a less-than-truthful client. Hopefully, the client will understand and appreciate the attorney's obligation to balance his or her needs with the attorney's own professional responsibilities, ensuring the continuation of the representation without any ethical dilemmas. Unfortunately, that is not always the case.
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 AllAttorney of the Year Finalist: Matheu Nunn's Supreme Court Successes
Removing a Child From Foster Care to Kinship Care: Expert Bonding Evaluations Are Key
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Why Kramer Levin Decided to Merge
- 2Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-61
- 3Decision of the Day: School District's Probe Was a 'Sham'; Title IX Administrator Showed Sex-Based Bias
- 4US Magistrate Judge Embry Kidd Confirmed to 11th Circuit
- 5Shaq Signs $11 Million Settlement to Resolve Astrals Investor Claims
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