Can a Minnesota lawyer reveal client information to respond to a negative online review?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2016. Ezel answers yours: whether it's allowed on your facts, under the current rules of professional conduct in your state, with citations.
Plain-English summary
The opinion addresses whether the self-defense exception to the confidentiality rule lets a lawyer reveal client information when responding to online criticism. It starts from Rule 1.6(a), which generally prohibits a lawyer from knowingly revealing information relating to the representation of a client, and notes that Rule 1.6(b) contains eleven enumerated exceptions.
The opinion focuses on Rule 1.6(b)(8), which permits disclosure the lawyer reasonably believes is necessary to establish a claim or defense in an actual or potential controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish a defense in a civil, criminal, or disciplinary proceeding based on conduct in which the client was involved, or to respond in any proceeding to the client's allegations about the lawyer's representation.
The opinion concludes that, when responding to comments (negative or otherwise) posted on the internet or any other public forum concerning the lawyer's representation of a client, Rule 1.6(b)(8) does not permit the lawyer to reveal information relating to the representation. It cautions that a response to public criticism of the lawyer's work, professionalism, or other conduct should be restrained and should not reveal information subject to Rule 1.6(a).
In practice
Under this opinion, a Minnesota lawyer responding to online criticism, whether on a review site or any other public forum, may not rely on Rule 1.6(b)(8) to reveal information relating to the representation of a client. The opinion states that any such response should be restrained and should not reveal information protected by Rule 1.6(a).
Common questions
Q: Can a lawyer disclose client information to rebut a negative online review?
A: No. The opinion concludes Rule 1.6(b)(8) does not permit a lawyer to reveal information relating to the representation when responding to comments posted on the internet or any other public forum.
Q: Does it matter whether the online comment is negative?
A: No. The opinion applies to comments "negative or otherwise" posted on the internet or other public forum concerning the lawyer's representation of a client.
Q: Can a lawyer respond to public criticism at all?
A: The opinion cautions that any response should be restrained and should not, under Rule 1.6(b)(8), reveal information subject to Rule 1.6(a). It addresses only the confidentiality limit, not whether to respond.
Background and rules framework
The opinion interprets Rule 1.6 of the Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct (the analog of Model Rule 1.6 on confidentiality of information), specifically the relationship between the general prohibition in Rule 1.6(a) and the self-defense exception in Rule 1.6(b)(8). It concludes the self-defense exception does not reach responses to public, non-proceeding criticism. It was adopted in 2016.
Citations and references
Rules of Professional Conduct:
- MR 1.6 (confidentiality of information)
- Minnesota RPC 1.6(a) (general prohibition), 1.6(b) (exceptions), and 1.6(b)(8) (self-defense exception)
See also
- Minnesota LPRB Ethics Op. 26: Confidentiality When Posting on Listservs
- ABA Ethics Op. 496: Responding to Online Criticism
- ABA Ethics Op. 480: Confidentiality in Blogging and Public Commentary
Source
- Landing page: https://lprb.mncourts.gov/lawyers-professional-responsibility-board-opinions/
- Full text (Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes): https://www.revisor.mn.gov/court_rules/pr/subtype/lawy/id/24/
- Original PDF: https://lprb.mncourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/Opinion-24_compressed.pdf
Original opinion text
Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
OPINION NO. 24
Confidentiality of Information
Rule 1.6(a), Minnesota Rules of Professional Conduct (Minn. R. Prof. Cond. Rule 1.6(a)), generally prohibits a lawyer from knowingly revealing information relating to the representation of a client. Contained within the subsections of Minn. R. Prof. Cond. Rule 1.6(b), however, are eleven enumerated exceptions to that general prohibition. Amongst those exceptions is Minn. R. Prof. Cond. Rule 1.6(b)(8), which permits a lawyer to reveal information relating to the representation of a client provided:
[T]he lawyer reasonably believes the disclosure is necessary to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in an actual or potential controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish a defense in a civil, criminal, or disciplinary proceeding against the lawyer based upon conduct in which the client was involved, or to respond in any proceeding to allegations by the client concerning the lawyer's representation of the client ....
When responding to comments, negative or otherwise, posted on the internet (or any other public forum) concerning the lawyer's representation of a client, Minn. R. Prof. Cond. Rule 1.6(b)(8) does not permit the lawyer to reveal information relating to the representation of a client.
Lawyers are cautioned that, when responding to comments posted on the internet or other public forum which are critical of the lawyer's work, professionalism, or other conduct, any such response should be restrained and should not, under Minn. R. Prof. Cond. Rule 1.6(b)(8), reveal information subject to Minn. R. Prof. Cond. Rule 1.6(a).
Adopted: September 30, 2016.
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 2016 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current rules of professional conduct in your state and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the rules it relies on.