Do Connecticut lawyers screening applicants for a pro bono referral network owe confidentiality when no attorney-client relationship follows?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2021. Ask about yours and see what the current Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct say for your facts, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Two lawyers working through a bar committee created a network of volunteer lawyers and an intake form for matching applicants with appropriate counsel. The Committee concludes that collecting the information, assessing legal needs, and choosing a lawyer for the matter fall within Connecticut's definition of practicing law. The Rules of Professional Conduct therefore govern the intake lawyers even when their role ends after the referral.
Rule 1.18 protects information learned from a person consulting about a possible lawyer-client relationship. Under Rules 1.18(b) and 1.9(c), the intake lawyers may not use or reveal that information except as the Rules otherwise permit or require. The protection applies even if no lawyer-client relationship follows with the intake lawyers or their nonprofit employer.
No special statement on the form is required to make the information confidential because the duty arises from the prospective-client relationship. The applicant's submission of the form impliedly authorizes sharing the information with the network lawyer who accepts the referral. The intake lawyers must take reasonable precautions against inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure or access.
In practice
Under this opinion, a pro bono matching program's intake and screening work is legal practice, and the resulting information must be handled like other confidential client information. The opinion permits sharing with the matched volunteer lawyer through the applicant's implied authorization while requiring reasonable safeguards for the intake records.
Common questions
Q: Are lawyers only acting as intake gatekeepers still practicing law?
A: Yes. Assessing an applicant's legal needs and matching the applicant with counsel fall within the Connecticut practice-of-law definition cited by the Committee.
Q: Is intake information confidential if the lawyers never take the case?
A: Yes. Rule 1.18 protects information learned from a prospective client even when no lawyer-client relationship follows.
Q: Must the intake form contain a confidentiality notice?
A: No. The opinion states that confidentiality arises from the relationship, not from specific language on the form, although the lawyers may include a notice.
Q: May the intake lawyers share the form with the matched pro bono lawyer?
A: Yes. The Committee concludes that completing and submitting the form impliedly authorizes disclosure to the network lawyer who accepts the matter.
Q: What safeguards apply to the intake information?
A: Rule 1.6(e) requires reasonable precautions against inadvertent or unauthorized disclosure and unauthorized access.
Q: Did the Committee decide whether attorney-client privilege applies?
A: No. The Committee declined that question because privilege is a matter of substantive and evidentiary law outside its jurisdiction.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applies Practice Book § 2-44A to classify the intake activity as legal practice. It then applies Rule 1.18's prospective-client definition and confidentiality protection, Rule 1.9(c)'s limits on using or revealing former-client information, Rule 1.6's disclosure provisions, and Rule 1.6(e)'s reasonable-safeguards duty.
Citations and references
Connecticut Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Rules 1.18(a), 1.18(b), 1.9(c), 1.6(a), 1.6(b), 1.6(c)(1), and 1.6(e)
Other authorities:
- Connecticut Practice Book § 2-44A, definition of the practice of law
- Rules of Professional Conduct, Scope, duties that attach while considering a prospective representation
- Mark A. Dubois and James F. Sullivan, Connecticut Legal Ethics and Malpractice § 1-1:2 (3d ed. 2016), prospective-client rights
Other opinions cited:
- Connecticut Informal Opinion 00-20, attorney-client privilege outside the Committee's jurisdiction
- Connecticut Informal Opinion 99-38, privilege question for the trial judge
See also
- OSB Ethics Op. 2005-138: Legal aid referrals and prospective-client conflicts
- Utah Ethics Op. 05-04: Prospective-client confidentiality
- Virginia LEO 1842: Confidential information from prospective clients
Source
- Landing page: Connecticut Bar Association Informal Ethics Opinions
- Original PDF: Informal Opinion 21-03
What do the rules say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 2021. 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