Can a lawyer disclose a client's identity and contagious-disease diagnosis to public health authorities without the client's consent?

Plain-English summary

The inquiry described a lawyer who learned during representation that a client had a contagious disease transmissible through casual contact, and who worked as a waiter. After consulting a public health official without naming the client, the lawyer was told quarantine was not warranted. The lawyer asked whether, had the disease been more serious, the client's identity and infection could have been reported to local public health authorities without the client's consent.

The opinion concluded the answer was no. Because the information was gained in the professional relationship and disclosure would likely be embarrassing or detrimental to the client, it was confidential information protected from disclosure by Rule 4(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. The opinion stated this would be true regardless of the seriousness of the client's disease, and cross-referenced RPC 120.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1992, before the North Carolina State Bar's adoption of the 2003 revisions to the Rules of Professional Conduct. The opinion carried an editor's note that it was decided before the 2003 amendment to the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct, citing current Rule 1.6(b)(3). 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 Treat this page as historical context, not current guidance.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: Could the lawyer report the client's contagious disease to public health authorities without consent?

A: No. The opinion concluded that the client's identity and infection were confidential information protected by Rule 4(b), so the lawyer could not disclose them to public health authorities without the client's consent.

Q: Did it matter how serious or dangerous the disease was?

A: No. The opinion stated that the protection applied regardless of the seriousness of the client's disease.

Q: Why was the diagnosis treated as confidential?

A: The opinion reasoned that the information was gained in the professional relationship and that disclosure would likely be embarrassing or detrimental to the client, which placed it within Rule 4(b)'s protection.

Background and rules framework

The opinion applied North Carolina Rule 4(b), which protected information gained in the professional relationship whose disclosure would be embarrassing or detrimental to the client (the confidentiality principle corresponding to Model Rule 1.6). The analysis turned on the source of the information and the harm disclosure would cause, not on the gravity of the disease.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• North Carolina Rule 4(b) (confidentiality of information gained in the professional relationship)
• MR 1.6 (confidentiality of information)

Other opinions cited:

• North Carolina RPC 120 (confidentiality of client information; reporting)

See also

• NC Ethics Op. RPC 120: reporting child abuse
• NC Ethics Op. RPC 133: recycling office waste paper

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ncbar.gov/for-lawyers/ethics-and-governing-rules/ethics-opinions/opinions/rpc-117/

Original opinion text

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

Editor's Note: This opinion was decided prior to the 2003 amendment to the Revised Rules of Professional Conduct. See Rule 1.6(b)(3).

Inquiry:

During the course of representation, Attorney L learned that Client C has a contagious disease which can be transmitted through casual contact in a normal everyday setting. The client currently works as a waiter. Lawyer L has consulted with a public health official concerning the disease in question but has not revealed the name of the client. Lawyer L was informed by the public health official that although the disease is contagious and can be transmitted by touch, quarantine is not warranted under the circumstances. Had the disease been more serious, could Lawyer L have reported the identity of the client to the local public health authorities along with the information that the client is infected without the client's consent?

Opinion:

No. Since the subject information was gained in the professional relationship and disclosure would likely be embarrassing or detrimental to the client, it must be considered confidential information which is protected from disclosure by Rule 4(b) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. This would be true regardless of the seriousness of the client's disease. See RPC 120.