How may a California lawyer publicly respond to a former client's online review accusing the lawyer of incompetence or overcharging, when no confidential information has been disclosed and no litigation is pending?
LACBA Ethics Opinion 525: Responding to a Former Client's Adverse Online Comments
Short answer: A California lawyer may publicly rebut a former client's online complaint about the representation, but only if the response discloses no confidential information, does not injure the former client in any matter related to the prior representation, and is proportionate and restrained.
Disclaimer: This is an advisory ethics opinion. Advisory opinions are not binding; they interpret the Los Angeles County Bar Association's view of California's rules of professional conduct and are persuasive authority. This summary is for research purposes only and is not legal advice. Verify current rules before acting on any specific guidance.
About this page: The plain-English summary and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official opinion. We do not reproduce the opinion text on this page; follow the linked source for the official text, which controls.
Plain-English summary
The opinion considers a former client who posts a public website review calling the attorney incompetent and accusing the attorney of overcharging. No litigation or arbitration is pending between the attorney and the former client, and the post itself discloses no confidential information.
The committee identifies three constraints that govern any public rebuttal. First, under former California Rule 3-100(A) and Bus. & Prof. Code section 6068(e), the duty of confidentiality survives the representation and prohibits the lawyer from disclosing the client's confidential information even in self-defense, where no exception applies. The committee emphasizes that California, unlike ABA Model Rule 1.6(b)(5), has no general self-defense exception authorizing disclosure to respond to allegations.
Second, the lawyer continues to owe the former client a duty not to injure the client in any matter involving the prior representation (Wutchumna Water Co. v. Bailey (1932) 216 Cal. 564, 573-574; Oasis West Realty v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811).
Third, even where the rebuttal would not violate the first two constraints, the response must be proportionate and restrained, both to limit the risk of confidentiality breach and to avoid retaliatory escalation that could implicate Bus. & Prof. Code section 6068(f) and other duties.
The committee concludes the lawyer may say generically that the lawyer disputes the former client's characterization, that the matter was handled professionally, and that the lawyer is constrained from discussing details by confidentiality duties. The lawyer cannot reveal facts about the engagement, the dispute, or the fee.
In practice
The opinion holds that, under California's rules as they stood in 2012, a lawyer responding to a former client's online review must protect confidentiality, must not injure the client in any matter relating to the representation, and must keep the rebuttal proportionate. California's duty of confidentiality applies even to information that ABA Model Rule 1.6(b)(5) would permit a lawyer to disclose in self-defense; the California rule has no equivalent express exception.
The opinion is from 2012 and applies former Rule 3-100; current California Rule 1.6 carries forward the confidentiality duty without adopting a general self-defense exception.
Common questions
Q: A former client wrote a bad Yelp review claiming I overcharged him. Can I post my side?
A: Per the opinion, you may publicly say you dispute the characterization and that confidentiality limits what you can discuss. You may not disclose facts about the representation, the fee, or the dispute itself, even to defend yourself.
Q: Does California recognize a self-defense exception like Model Rule 1.6(b)(5)?
A: Per the opinion, no. The committee expressly notes the divergence between former Rule 3-100 (and Bus. & Prof. Code section 6068(e)) and ABA Model Rule 1.6(b)(5), and concludes the lawyer in this scenario has no statutory self-defense disclosure right.
Q: Can I sue the former client for defamation based on the review?
A: The opinion does not directly approve or prohibit a suit but cautions that a lawyer's response must not "injure the former client in any matter involving the prior representation," citing Wutchumna and Oasis West Realty. A defamation action over the comments is outside the scope of the committee's analysis.
Q: What if the former client's review reveals confidential information?
A: The opinion assumes the review does not disclose confidential information. It expressly does not decide whether a client's disclosure waives the confidentiality duty.
Q: Can I share facts privately with friends or colleagues?
A: Per the opinion, the confidentiality duty applies regardless of audience. Discussing the engagement with non-clients reveals confidential information protected by Bus. & Prof. Code section 6068(e) and former Rule 3-100.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets former California Rule 3-100(A) and Bus. & Prof. Code section 6068(e)(1), which preserve the client's confidentiality even after the representation ends. It compares California's posture to ABA Model Rule 1.6(b)(5), which allows disclosure in self-defense, and notes California has not adopted that exception. It also draws on the surviving duties to former clients from Wutchumna and Oasis West Realty.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Former California Rule 3-100(A) (confidentiality)
- ABA Model Rule 1.6(b)(5) (self-defense disclosure exception, not adopted in California)
Statutes:
- Bus. & Prof. Code section 6068(e) (duty to preserve client secrets)
- Evid. Code section 912 (waiver of privilege)
- Evid. Code sections 950 et seq. (attorney-client privilege)
Cases:
- Wutchumna Water Co. v. Bailey, 216 Cal. 564 (Cal. 1932), duty not to injure former client in related matters
- Oasis West Realty v. Goldman, 51 Cal.4th 811 (Cal. 2011), continuing duties to former clients
- General Dynamics Corp. v. Superior Ct., 7 Cal.4th 1164 (Cal. 1994)
- Costco Wholesale Corp. v. Superior Court, 47 Cal.4th 725 (Cal. 2009), scope of privilege
- County of San Francisco v. Cobra Solutions, Inc., 38 Cal.4th 839 (Cal. 2006)
- In the Matter of Dixon, 4 Cal. State Bar Ct. Rptr. 23 (Rev. Dept. 1999)
- Oxy Res. California LLC v. Superior Court, 115 Cal.App.4th 875 (2004)
- Styles v. Mumbert, 164 Cal.App.4th 1163 (2008)
Other opinions cited:
- LACBA Formal Opinion 396 (1982)
- LACBA Formal Opinion 452 (1982)
- LACBA Formal Opinion 498 (1999): disclosure of client misrepresentation in fee dispute
- LACBA Formal Opinion 519 (2007): self-defense exception to confidentiality
- California State Bar Formal Opinion 1983-71
- Restatement (Third) of the Law Governing Lawyers section 64, comment e
See also
- LACBA Opinion 519: Self-Defense Exception to Confidentiality
- LACBA Opinion 498: Disclosure of Client Misrepresentation in Fee Dispute
- No other sibling opinions yet indexed.
Source
- Landing page: https://lacba.org/?pg=ethics-opinions
- Original PDF: https://lacba.org/docDownload/2010577