May a lawyer appointed to federal office list former client names and fee amounts on a public financial disclosure form?

Plain-English summary

A lawyer becoming a federal officer or employee was asked to identify payors above a fee threshold on a public financial disclosure form. The opinion says both client names and the fact that a legal fee exceeded the threshold are information related to representation protected by Rule 4-1.6.

Without the client’s informed consent, disclosure depends on the other-law or court-order exception in Rule 4-1.6(b)(4). Whether federal law requires disclosure or supersedes the confidentiality rule is a legal question the office does not resolve. If other law appears to require disclosure, the lawyer must discuss it with the client to the extent required by Rule 4-1.4.

If a body claiming legal authority orders disclosure, the opinion requires all nonfrivolous objections on the client’s behalf. Any legally authorized disclosure is limited to what is reasonably necessary, and confidentiality continues after representation ends.

In practice

For this public form, the opinion treats even the client’s identity and fee threshold as confidential. It leaves the effect of other law unresolved and limits any authorized disclosure to what compliance reasonably requires.

Common questions

Q: Are client names and fee thresholds confidential?

A: Yes. The opinion says both are information related to the representation under Rule 4-1.6.

Q: Does the opinion decide whether federal disclosure law controls?

A: No. It says that question of law falls outside the Rules of Professional Conduct.

Q: Does confidentiality continue for former clients?

A: Yes. The opinion cites Comment [17] and Rule 4-1.9(c) for that continuing duty.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applies Rule 4-1.6 to client names and fee information, Rule 4-1.6(b)(4) to other law or a court order, and Rule 4-1.4 to client communication. It cites Rule 4-1.9(c) for continuing confidentiality.

Citations and references

Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Rules 4-1.6, 4-1.6(b)(4), 4-1.4, and 4-1.9(c)
• Rule 4-1.6 Comments [10], [12], and [17]

See also

• Missouri Informal Op. 2017-04: Court-Ordered Disclosure
• Missouri Informal Op. 2026-11: Subpoenaed Former-Client Lawyer

Source

• Landing page: https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/2015-09/

Original opinion text

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

Question: May Attorney, a federal officer or employee, disclose client names on a public financial disclosure form which requires Attorney to list payments to Attorney exceeding a particular sum, and the names of those making the payments, in the two years prior to Attorney’s appointment as a federal officer or employee, where the information would include the names of clients and information about clients’ legal fees?

Answer: The name of a client, and the fact that the client’s legal fee exceeds a particular sum, are confidential under Rule 4–1.6 as information related to the representation. Attorney may not disclose the information without the client’s informed consent or if Attorney is complying with “other law or a court order.” Rule 4–1.6(b)(4). Whether other law requires disclosure and whether it supersedes Rule 4–1.6 are matters of law outside the scope of the Rules of Professional Conduct, as explained in Comment [10]. If other law appears to require disclosure, Attorney must discuss the matter with the client to the extent required by Rule 4–1.4. If a court, other tribunal, or governmental body claiming authority pursuant to other law orders disclosure, Attorney must assert on behalf of the client all nonfrivolous claims that the order is not authorized by law or that other applicable law protects the information. Rule 4–1.6, Comment [12]. If other law does authorize disclosure, the disclosure may only be made to the extent reasonable necessary to comply with the applicable law. The duty of confidentiality continues after the client-lawyer relationship has ended. Comment [17], citing Rule 4–1.9(c).