Must a public defender's office warn one client that another of its clients is cooperating in an investigation targeting the first client?

Plain-English summary

A public defender's office represented two clients on unrelated matters: Client A through Assistant Public Defender X, and Client B through Assistant Public Defender Y. To mitigate his own case, Client B began cooperating with police to investigate a contract murder, and while Client B was wired, Assistant Y learned that Client A, also a client of the office, was the target of that murder investigation. Y secured withdrawal orders from both cases without consulting X. The inquiry asked whether the office owed any duty to inform Client A of the investigation.

The opinion, assuming Assistant Y learned of the investigation in the course of representing Client B, concluded the office had no duty to inform Client A and that doing so would be improper. Rule 1.6(a) bars a lawyer from using or revealing a client's confidence or secret without the client's consent after disclosure. The committee noted that Rule 1.6 applies to all employees, associates, and partners to whom the confidence or secret was communicated, and that Rules 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 fix responsibility on partners, supervising lawyers, subordinate lawyers, and non-lawyer employees to ensure compliance.

The committee concluded that nothing in the Rules requires a lawyer to disclose to a client information on an unrelated matter, even where it would benefit the client, particularly where disclosure would violate the confidentiality rule. It observed that Assistant X could properly advise Client A not to discuss his case or communicate information against his interests to anyone other than his own attorney.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1991, before Illinois adopted the 2010 Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct. The ISBA Board of Governors affirmed the opinion in May 2010 as generally consistent with the 2010 Rules (Rules 1.6, 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3), while cautioning that the specific standards referenced may differ from the 2010 Rules. 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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 or requirement mentioned here.

Common questions

Q: Must a public defender's office warn a client that another client is cooperating against him?

A: No. The opinion concluded the office has no duty to inform the client and that doing so would be improper, because Rule 1.6 bars revealing the cooperating client's confidence or secret without consent.

Q: Does it matter that different assistants represent the two clients in the same office?

A: The opinion concluded it does not; Rule 1.6 applies to all members of the office, and Rules 5.1 through 5.3 fix responsibility on partners, supervising and subordinate lawyers, and non-lawyer employees.

Q: Is there anything the client's own assistant can do?

A: The opinion concluded the client's assistant could properly advise him not to discuss his case or communicate information against his interests to anyone other than his attorney.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interpreted Rule 1.6(a) (confidentiality of a client's confidences and secrets) together with Rules 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 (imputed responsibility of supervising lawyers, subordinate lawyers, and non-lawyer employees), concluding the office could not reveal one client's secret to another even on an unrelated matter (Model Rules 1.6, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3).

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality of information) / Illinois Rule 1.6
• Model Rules 5.1, 5.2, 5.3 (responsibilities of supervising, subordinate, and non-lawyer staff) / Illinois Rules 5.1, 5.2, 5.3

See also

• ISBA Ethics Op. 90-08: Reporting a Client Lawyer
• ISBA Ethics Op. 91-26: Suing a Client-Insurer

Source

• Landing page: https://www.isba.org/ethics/opinions/9027