If a court orders a lawyer to reveal a client's confidential whereabouts, does complying violate the duty to preserve client confidences?

Plain-English summary

A divorced mother (W) had custody of the minor child, with the father (H) holding visitation rights. After visitation became strained, W moved out of state, cut off contact, and allowed no visitation; H then moved to amend the custody decree. When W retained attorney A, she expressly directed A to keep her and the child's whereabouts confidential. On H's motion, the court ordered A to provide the court with the child's address. The question was what A's ethical obligation was in the face of that order.

The Commission pointed to Bar Rule 3.6(l)(1), which bars a lawyer from knowingly revealing a confidence or secret of a client without informed written consent "except as permitted by these rules or as required by law or by order of court." By its terms, the rule creates an exception to the duty to preserve client confidences. The Commission concluded that a valid court order requiring an attorney to disclose a confidential communication relieves the attorney of a violation, and that the exception applied here. It added that the lawyer should first be satisfied that the order is valid.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1981, before Maine's replacement of the former Maine Bar Rules with the Maine Rules of Professional Conduct (effective August 1, 2009). 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Does complying with a court order to disclose a client's confidential information violate the confidentiality rule?

A: The opinion concluded no. Bar Rule 3.6(l)(1) excepts disclosures required by law or by order of court, so a valid court order relieves the attorney of a violation.

Q: Does the lawyer have any duty before complying with the order?

A: The opinion concluded that the lawyer should be satisfied that the order is valid before disclosing.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets Maine Bar Rule 3.6(l)(1), the rule preserving client confidences and secrets, which by its terms excepts disclosures permitted by the rules or required by law or court order. It corresponds to Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality of information), which likewise permits disclosure to comply with other law or a court order. The analysis turns on the rule's built-in court-order exception and on the lawyer's threshold check that the order is valid.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Model Rule 1.6 (confidentiality of information)
• Maine Bar Rule 3.6(l)(1)

See also

• Maine Ethics Op. 55: Disclosing One Client's Confidences in Defending a Grievance
• Maine Ethics Op. 60: Acceptance of Possession of Physical Evidence
• Maine Ethics Op. 84: Disclosing a Client's Incapacity to Protect the Client's Interests

Source

• Landing page: https://mebaroverseers.org/attorney_services/opinion.html?id=89513

Original opinion text

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

Issued by the Professional Ethics Commission

Date Issued: January 15, 1981

Facts

H & W were divorced in 1975, and W was awarded custody of the minor child, with rights of visitation granted to H. After some time during which the exercise of visitation by H was strained, W moved out of State. W has had no contact with H and has permitted no visitation between H and C. He brought a motion to amend the custody decree. When retained by W, attorney A was expressly directed by W to keep the whereabouts of W and C confidential. Upon motion by H, the court has ordered A to provide the court with the address of child, C.

Question

In the face of the court's order, what is the ethical obligation of attorney A.

Discussion

Rule 3.6(l)(1) of the Bar Rules provides:

(1) Except as permitted by these rules or as required by law or by order of court, a lawyer shall not, without the informed written consent of the client, knowingly reveal a confidence or secret of his client. . . . (emphasis added).

By its terms, the Rule creates an exception to the obligation a lawyer owes to his client to preserve confidences of his or her client.

Conclusions

A valid court order requiring an attorney to disclose a confidential communication relieves the attorney of a violation of Rule 3.4(l). The exception apparently applies in the present case. The lawyer should, however, be satisfied that the Order is valid.