Could a lawyer alert mental-health personnel about a former client's apparent danger?

Plain-English summary

A former criminal-defense client, found not guilty by reason of insanity, continued contacting the lawyer from a mental-health institution. Past actions led the lawyer to believe the former client might still be dangerous, possibly to the lawyer.

The opinion said the former-client relationship still triggered Rule 4-1.6 confidentiality. It identified Rule 4-1.6(b)(1) as permitting disclosure of information the lawyer reasonably believed necessary to prevent a criminal act likely to cause imminent death or substantial bodily harm.

Currency note

This 1994 opinion predates Missouri's 2007 amendments to its Rules of Professional Conduct. An official reference note identifies July 1, 2007 amendments to Rules 4-1.9 and 4-1.10. Subsequent rule amendments or later opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context and verify current rules before relying on it.

Common questions

Q: Did confidentiality end when the representation ended?

A: No. The opinion said the circumstances still created a Rule 4-1.6 duty.

Q: When did the cited exception permit disclosure?

A: When the lawyer reasonably believed it necessary to prevent a criminal act likely to result in imminent death or substantial bodily harm.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied Rule 4-1.6 and its subsection (b)(1) to a former criminal-defense client's potentially dangerous communications.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• Missouri Rule 4-1.6
• Missouri Rule 4-1.6(b)(1)

See also

• Missouri Informal Op. 2020-03: Client's suicide threat
• Missouri Informal Op. 960030: Former client confidentiality waiver

Source

• Landing page: https://mo-legal-ethics.org/informal-opinion/940020/

Original opinion text

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

QUESTION: Attorney represented a criminal defendant who was found not guilty by reason of insanity. Attorney no longer represents this person. The former client continues to contact Attorney and, based on past actions, Attorney believes these communications indicate that the former client is still dangerous and, possibly, dangerous to Attorney. The former client is in a mental health institution. May Attorney disclose this information to the mental health personnel? ANSWER: Even though the person is a former client, these circumstances give rise to an obligation of confidentiality under Rule 4–1.6. However, Rule 4–1.6(b)(1) allows Attorney to disclose that information Attorney reasonably believes is necessary to prevent this person from committing a criminal act that “is likely to result in imminent death or substantial bodily harm.”