Can a lawyer disclose a client's identity in response to an IRS summons about cash fees over $10,000 when the client refuses to consent?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1994. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current Massachusetts Rules of Professional Conduct, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Internal Revenue Code Section 6050I requires a person who receives more than $10,000 in cash to file IRS Form 8300, disclosing both the amount and the payor's identity, which affects lawyers paid in cash. A lawyer had filed Forms 8300 reporting cash payments from a client but withheld the client's identity, taking the position that disclosing it would breach confidentiality. After the lawyer received an IRS administrative summons and notice that the Department of Justice would sue to enforce it, the lawyer asked the client to consent; the client refused, and DOJ filed its enforcement action. The lawyer asked whether he could ethically disclose the client's identity absent consent or a court order.
The committee explained that DR 4-101(B)(1) barred revealing a client's confidences or secrets except as DR 4-101(C) allowed, and that a client's identity can be a confidence or secret, a determination the lawyer alone could make. With consent refused, the DR 4-101(C)(1) consent exception was unavailable. DR 4-101(C)(2) permitted disclosure when "required by law or court order," but the committee's rules barred it from opining on the substantive-law question whether Section 6050I's obligations were sufficient to trigger that exception.
Given the refusal of consent and the absence of a Supreme Court decision holding that Section 6050I overrode the lawyer's DR 4-101 obligations, the committee concluded that if the lawyer had any doubt, he should continue to resist disclosure and require DOJ to obtain a court order. If DOJ obtained one, the lawyer would have done his best to protect the client's confidences, and DR 4-101(C)(2) would then permit disclosure. The committee cited ethics opinions from Florida, Washington, and Georgia reaching similar conclusions.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1994, 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Is a client's identity protected as a confidence or secret?
A: It can be. The committee said a client's identity may be a confidence or secret within DR 4-101(A), and that whether it is in a given case is a determination the lawyer alone makes.
Q: What should the lawyer do when the client refuses to consent to an IRS demand for his identity?
A: The committee advised the lawyer to resist disclosure and make the government obtain a court order, because the consent exception was unavailable and no Supreme Court decision settled that the tax statute overrode the confidentiality duty.
Q: When could the lawyer disclose the identity?
A: Once a court ordered disclosure. The committee said that with a court order in hand, DR 4-101(C)(2) ("required by law or court order") would permit the lawyer to reveal the client's identity.
Background and rules framework
The opinion applied the predecessor disciplinary rule DR 4-101(B)(1) (bar on revealing confidences or secrets) and DR 4-101(C)(1)-(2) (the consent exception and the "required by law or court order" exception), corresponding to Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality). The committee expressly declined to address the substantive-law question whether IRC Section 6050I triggered the court-order exception.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- Model Rule 1.6 / DR 4-101(B)(1), (C)(1)-(2) (confidentiality; consent and legal-compulsion exceptions)
Statutes:
- Internal Revenue Code Section 6050I (cash-receipt reporting on IRS Form 8300)
Other opinions cited:
- Florida Bar Professional Ethics Committee Advisory Op. 92-5; Washington State Bar Op. 189 (1991); State Bar of Georgia Advisory Op. 41 (1984)
See also
- MA Bar Ethics Op. 96-4: Revealing a former client's confidences in self-defense
- MA Bar Ethics Op. 94-5: Discussing client matters on a cellular telephone
Source
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 1994 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.