May a Connecticut lawyer consulted for a second opinion contact the client's counsel of record without the client's informed consent?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2011. Ask about yours and see what the current Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A divorce litigant consulted another lawyer about existing counsel's handling of a pending case. The Committee was asked whether the second-opinion lawyer could contact counsel of record without the litigant's informed consent.
Rule 1.6 prohibits disclosure of information relating to a representation unless the client gives informed consent, disclosure is impliedly authorized to carry out the representation, or another stated exception applies. The question was whether seeking a second opinion impliedly authorizes contact with existing counsel.
The Committee concluded that it does not. A client seeking a second opinion may doubt existing counsel but may not want those doubts disclosed because they could be unreasonable, could unnecessarily damage the relationship, or could affect the ongoing representation.
Counsel of record also could not discuss the case with the second-opinion lawyer without client consent. The fact that the two lawyers know each other well does not create implied authorization.
In practice
Under this opinion, the consultation and the client's concerns remain protected unless the client gives informed consent to contact existing counsel. Professional familiarity between the lawyers does not change that result.
Common questions
Q: Does requesting a second opinion authorize contact with counsel of record?
A: No. The Committee finds no implied authorization.
Q: Why might the client want the consultation kept confidential?
A: The opinion identifies concern about alienating existing counsel and uncertainty about how disclosure could affect the representation.
Q: May counsel of record discuss the case with the second-opinion lawyer?
A: Not without the client's informed consent under the assumptions in the opinion.
Q: Does it matter that the lawyers know each other well?
A: No. Their relationship does not create implied authorization.
Background and rules framework
Rule 1.6 protects information relating to a representation and permits disclosure only with informed consent, implied authorization to carry out the work, or an applicable exception.
Citations and references
Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Rule 1.6
See also
- LSBA Op. 07-RPCC-014: Second opinions for represented persons
- NY State Bar Op. 1010: Advertising second opinions to represented parties
- CT Informal Op. 21-03: Pro bono intake confidentiality
Source
- Landing page: Connecticut Bar Association Informal Ethics Opinions
- Original PDF: Informal Opinion 11-05
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2011. Ezel checks the current Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct against your situation and cites the rules it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace