May a Missouri lawyer answer a former client's negative online review using information the client already posted?

Plain-English summary

Rules 4-1.9(c) and 4-1.6 preserve confidentiality after representation ends. A negative review generally is not the controversy needed for Rule 4-1.6(b)(3)'s self-defense exception.

Confidentiality covers all representation information regardless of source, even if not privileged, and also covers disclosures that could reasonably lead someone to protected information. A response may state that professional obligations constrain the lawyer, without discussing the representation.

In practice

Under this opinion, the client's public criticism does not create a reciprocal right to disclose. Any response remains representation-free.

Common questions

Q: Does the review trigger the self-defense exception?

A: Generally no.

Q: May the lawyer repeat facts the client posted?

A: Rule 4-1.6 still prohibits revealing representation information.

Q: What may a response say?

A: It may acknowledge professional obligations without revealing information.

Background and rules framework

Rules 4-1.6 and 4-1.9(c), including Comments [3] and [4], govern former-client information and indirect disclosures.

Citations and references

• Missouri Rules 4-1.6, 4-1.6(b)(3), and 4-1.9(c); Rule 4-1.6 Comments [3] and [4]

See also

• ABA Formal Op. 496: Responding to Online Criticism
• Missouri Informal Op. 2020-22: Credit-Card Chargebacks

Source

• Landing page: Missouri Informal Opinion 2018-08

Original opinion text

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

Question: May Attorney respond to a negative online review about the representation of a former client if Attorney confines the response to comments directed to information already disclosed by the former client in the review?

Answer: In most circumstances, Rules 4–1.9(c) and 4–1.6 prohibit Attorney from revealing information relating to the representation of a client in response to a negative online review, even where the client or someone writing on behalf of the client has posted criticism of the quality of Attorney’s representation. Per Rule 4–1.9(c), Attorney has a duty to a former client not to reveal confidential information except as would be permitted with respect to a client. A negative online review generally does not constitute a “controversy” sufficient to trigger the exception in Rule 4–1.6(b)(3) and permit a lawyer to reveal confidential information to the extent reasonably necessary to establish a defense in a controversy between the lawyer and the client. Even if the information is not privileged as a matter of law such that Attorney could be compelled to disclose it in a legal proceeding, Rule 4–1.6 does not permit the voluntary disclosure of confidential information by Attorney in response to an online review. See Comment [3]. Rule 4–1.6 protects all information related to the representation, whatever its source. Comment [3]. Also prohibited are disclosures by a lawyer that do not reveal protected information but could reasonably lead to the discovery of such information by a third person. Comment [4]. If Attorney chooses to post a response to an online review, the response may acknowledge an attorney’s obligation to comply with professional obligations and must reveal no information related to the representation in violation of Rule 4–1.6.