May a lawyer report a client who has not paid fees to a credit reporting service?

Plain-English summary

The inquiring attorney asked whether a law firm could subscribe to a credit reporting service and provide it with information about clients delinquent in their fees. The committee concluded this is permissible under three conditions: only former clients, not current clients, may be reported; confidential information unrelated to collection of the debt must not be disclosed; and the debt must not be in dispute.

The committee began from the duty under Rule 4-1.6(a) to preserve all information relating to the representation, a duty that continues after the representation ends and ordinarily extends to the client's finances and fee arrangements. It identified the limited exception in Rule 4-1.6(c)(2), allowing disclosure to the extent necessary to establish a claim or defense in a controversy between lawyer and client, and quoted the Comment's caution to avoid unnecessary disclosure, limit disclosure to those who need to know, and seek protective arrangements. The committee read the exception narrowly, noting that ethical standards traditionally permit fee-collection actions only as a "last resort," citing The Florida Bar v. Fields and Opinion 81-3.

Applying these principles, the committee concluded that reporting is permissible only for former clients, because the relationship of special trust makes reporting a current client unethical (citing Opinion 88-1); that disclosure must be strictly limited to information relevant to collecting the debt; and that reporting is permissible only when the debt is undisputed but unpaid, not where there is a dispute about the obligation to pay.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1991, before The Florida Bar's adoption of the 2006 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance. Verify against current rules before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Can a lawyer report a current client to a credit bureau for unpaid fees?

A: No. The opinion concluded that the attorney-client relationship is one of special trust, so it would be unethical to report a current client; only former clients may be reported.

Q: What information can be disclosed to the credit service?

A: The opinion concluded that disclosure of confidential information must be strictly limited to that information relevant to collection of the debt, consistent with Rule 4-1.6 and its Comment.

Q: Does it matter whether the client disputes the bill?

A: Yes. The opinion concluded that reporting is permissible only when the debt is undisputed but unpaid; if the former client disputes the obligation to pay, use of a credit reporting service would not be permissible.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Rule 4-1.6 (Model Rule 1.6), the duty of confidentiality, including the exception in Rule 4-1.6(c)(2) permitting disclosure to establish a claim or defense in a controversy between lawyer and client. The committee read the exception narrowly in light of the tradition that fee-collection actions are a last resort.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Fla. Rule 4-1.6 / Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality), including subsections (a) and (c)(2) and the Comment

Cases:

• The Florida Bar v. Fields, 482 So. 2d 1354 (Fla. 1986)

Other opinions cited:

• Fla. Ethics Ops. 81-3, 88-1

See also

• FL Bar Ethics Op. 92-5: Confidentiality and an IRS Form 8300 Summons
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 95-3: Assigning Fee Receivables to a Firm-Owned Collection Corp
• FL Bar Ethics Op. 10-3: Confidential Information of a Deceased Client

Source

• Landing page: https://www.floridabar.org/etopinions/etopinion-90-2/
• Original PDF: https://www-media.floridabar.org/uploads/2017/04/FL-Bar-Ethics-Op-90-2.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.

FLORIDA BAR ETHICS OPINION
OPINION 90-2
March 1, 1991
Advisory ethics opinions are not binding.

It is ethically permissible for an attorney to report a delinquent former client to a credit reporting service if confidential information unrelated to the collection of the debt is not disclosed and if the debt is not in dispute.

RPC: 4-1.6, 4-1.6(a), 4-1.6(c)(2)
Opinions: 81-3, 88-1
Cases: The Florida Bar v. Fields, 482 So.2d 1354 (Fla. 1986)

The inquiring attorney asks whether it would be permissible for a law firm to "subscribe to a credit reporting service and provide such service with information about clients who are delinquent in their fees." The Committee concludes that this action would be ethically permissible under these circumstances: (1) only former clients, rather than current clients, may be reported to the credit bureau; (2) confidential information unrelated to the collection of the debt must not be disclosed; and (3) the debt must not be in dispute.

An attorney (or a law firm) is ethically obligated to preserve in confidence all "information relating to representation of a client." Rule 4-1.6(a), Rules Regulating The Florida Bar. This obligation continues even after termination of the attorney-client relationship. Comment, Rule 4-1.6. The ethical duty of confidentiality ordinarily extends to information about the client's finances and the client's fee arrangements with the attorney.

There are several limited exceptions to this duty of confidentiality. For example, Rule 4-1.6(c)(2) provides:

(c) A lawyer may reveal such [confidential] information to the extent the lawyer believes necessary:

(2) To establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and client[.]

The Comment to Rule 4-1.6 cautions that in fee controversy situations an attorney "must make every effort practicable to avoid unnecessary disclosure of information relating to a representation, to limit disclosure to those having the need to know it, and to obtain protective orders or make other arrangements minimizing the risk of disclosure."

The above-quoted exception to the confidentiality rule should be narrowly construed in view of the fact that ethical standards in the legal profession traditionally have permitted attorneys to pursue fee collection actions against clients only as a "last resort." See, e.g., The Florida Bar v. Fields, 482 So.2d 1354, 1359 (Fla. 1986) (attorney suing delinquent clients); Florida Opinion 81-3 (attorney using collection agency to collect delinquent fees).

As this Committee recognized in Opinion 81-3, however, there are situations in which it is ethically permissible for an attorney to pursue fee collection actions. The Committee is of the opinion that it is ethically permissible for an attorney to report a delinquent former client to a credit reporting service if confidential information unrelated to the collection of the debt is not disclosed and if the debt is not in dispute.

The attorney-client relationship is one of special trust and confidence and, therefore, it would be unethical for an attorney to report a current client to a credit reporting service. Only former clients may be reported. See Florida Ethics Opinion 88-1. In accordance with Rule 4-1.6 and the accompanying Comment, disclosure of confidential information concerning the delinquent former client or the representation must be strictly limited to that information relevant to collection of the debt. Finally, the Committee believes that the reporting of a former client to a credit reporting service is permissible only when the debt is undisputed but has not been paid; if there is a dispute concerning the former client's obligation to pay the fee in question, an attorney's use of a credit reporting service would not be permissible.