Must a lawyer disclose a former client's alleged fraud when the evidence is uncertain and tied up with the client's confidences?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1993. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.
Plain-English summary
A lawyer had represented Client X in a motor vehicle case that settled, using a witness statement (from Y) to establish damages, while a second witness (Z) cast doubt on parts of it during negotiations. A later dispute arose between X and Z, handled by other counsel. Z's attorney, and then Y, contacted the lawyer claiming Y's statement had been fraudulent and asking the lawyer to act, while X's current counsel refused to let X speak with the lawyer or authorize any disclosure. The lawyer, expecting a subpoena, asked about her obligations.
The committee held that DR 7-102(B)(1), which can require a lawyer to disclose a client's fraud committed during the representation, did not impose a mandatory duty here for two reasons. First, the information did not "clearly establish" fraud by X: Y's unspecified claim that his own statement was "fraudulent" fell far short, and the discrepancy between Y and Z had already been disclosed in the settlement. Second, the privileged-communication exception applied, because any conclusion about X's state of mind would have rested on X's own confidences. The committee distinguished its earlier opinions (89-1, 91-4, 91-6) finding a mandatory duty: those all involved a client's intent to commit a future crime closely tied to the completed fraud, which was absent here, so there was neither a mandatory duty under DR 7-102(B)(1) nor discretion under DR 4-101(C)(3).
On the anticipated subpoena, the committee noted that the evidentiary attorney-client privilege is narrower than the DR 4-101 duty of confidentiality, so a lawyer may be compelled to testify about "secrets" that are not privileged; if the lawyer has any doubt about the privilege, she must assert it until the client consents or a court rules it inapplicable. Finally, the committee concluded that DR 7-104(A)(1), the no-contact rule, did not bar the lawyer from sending the letters she received directly to her former client X, even though they touched X's current litigation and X's present counsel did not want X to communicate with her, because that rule addresses communication with adverse represented parties, not a former client.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1993, before Massachusetts's adoption of the 2015 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: When is disclosing a client's fraud mandatory under the old rules?
A: The committee said DR 7-102(B)(1) requires disclosure only when the lawyer has information clearly establishing fraud committed during the representation and the information is not protected as a privileged communication; both conditions failed here.
Q: Does a vague claim that a witness statement was "fraudulent" trigger the duty?
A: No. The committee held that Y's unspecified assertion fell far short of "clearly establishing" fraud by the client, especially since the discrepancy had already surfaced in the settlement.
Q: If subpoenaed, what should the lawyer do about confidential information?
A: The committee said that because the confidentiality duty is broader than the privilege, the lawyer must assert the attorney-client privilege whenever she has any doubt about its application, unless the client waives it or a court rules otherwise.
Q: Can a lawyer send documents to a former client whose new counsel objects?
A: Yes. The committee concluded that DR 7-104(A)(1) did not bar the lawyer from sending the letters directly to her former client, because the no-contact rule addresses adverse represented parties, not former clients.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied DR 7-102(B)(1) (duty on receiving information clearly establishing a client's fraud), corresponding to Model Rule 4.1, together with DR 4-101 (confidences and secrets), corresponding to Model Rule 1.6, and DR 7-104(A)(1) (communication with a represented party), corresponding to Model Rule 4.2. The analysis turned on the "clearly establishing" threshold and the privileged-communication exception.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Model Rule 4.1 / DR 7-102(B)(1) (disclosure of a client's fraud during the representation)
- Model Rule 1.6 / DR 4-101 (confidences and secrets; privilege distinguished)
- Model Rule 4.2 / DR 7-104(A)(1) (communication with a represented party)
Other opinions cited:
- MBA Opinions 89-1, 91-4, 91-6 (situations where the privilege exception did not negate a mandatory disclosure duty)
See also
- MA Bar Ethics Op. 93-3: Trustee's lawyer and misappropriated trust funds
- MA Bar Ethics Op. 99-2: A partner's fraud on agencies
Source
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1993 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.