A mostly sealed case in front of the state Supreme Court is raising questions—not just on the parties and circumstances involved—but on the ethical implications of attorney-client privilege when the client is a public charity.

The state Supreme Court partially unsealed Monday a case involving a nonprofit organization and its attorney. The names of the parties remain under seal in Redacted v. Redacted, but the court disclosed the question it will consider: whether the counsel for a nonprofit corporation who believes charitable assets are being unlawfully diverted can disclose that information to the Office of the Attorney General.

“[Redacted] as a public charity, owed a fiduciary duty to the public; thus, when [Redacted] lawyer had reason to believe that the corporation was diverting public charitable resources into private pockets, she was at least permitted, if not obliged, to disclose that information to the attorney general,” the appellant said in her petition for allowance of appeal.