Ethics Forum: Questions and Answers on Professional Responsibility
I was looking at the Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 1.6, the confidentiality rule, and I am curious if my fee letter with a client is confidential and within the privilege. Is it?
June 17, 2021 at 01:53 PM
7 minute read
EthicsBreaching confidentiality is a serious issue and must be protected at all cost.
I was looking at the Rule of Professional Conduct Rule 1.6, the confidentiality rule, and I am curious if my fee letter with a client is confidential and within the privilege. Is it?
The attorney-client privilege, which is statutory in nature and also has a common law basis, has been broadened by Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6. Now, a lawyer cannot reveal any information relating to the representation of the client. There are exceptions under Rule 1.6(c) involving threats of death or serious bodily harm, to prevent a client from committing a crime that could result in substantial injury to the financial interest or property of another, to prevent or mitigate the consequences of a client's criminal or fraudulent act in which the lawyer's services had been used, to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer, controversy between the lawyer and the client, or to secure legal advice about the lawyer's compliance with the Rules of Professional Conduct. In other words, if a lawyer seeks the advice of someone else about the Rules of Conduct, there can be an exception to the rule to allow a lawyer to defend themselves by saying they sought advice on the issue.
But there are other exceptions that aren't necessarily well known. The question of fee agreements has arisen in the past, but at least under Pennsylvania law, a fee agreement is not normally protected by the attorney-client privilege, nor is billing normally protected unless the release would set forth some attorney-client confidential information. Despite that, a lawyer perhaps should object because it is hard to figure out what the relevance of a fee agreement might be in most cases where a lawyer is a party. The lack of protection of the fee agreements is long-standing. An example is the case of Montgomery County v. Microvote, 175 F.3d 296 (3rd Circuit 1999), which stated, "However, the fee agreement is not privileged. The attorney/client privilege does not shield fee arrangements." In essence, a fee agreement is not by itself protected unless its disclosure would indicate the client was involved in criminal activity. The fee agreement does not come within the ambit of the work product privilege and, of course, is not the opinion of a nontestifying expert.
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
© 2025 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 AllAvoiding Conflict When Relating Advice to an Adverse Party to Facilitate a Client Matter
4 minute readMatt's Corner: Pa.R.D.E. 217—Obligations of a Formerly Admitted Attorney
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 1'It's Not Going to Be Pretty': PayPal, Capital One Face Novel Class Actions Over 'Poaching' Commissions Owed Influencers
- 211th Circuit Rejects Trump's Emergency Request as DOJ Prepares to Release Special Counsel's Final Report
- 3Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 4'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 5Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
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