Can a New Hampshire lawyer settling a case demand that opposing counsel not disclose publicly available information about the case?

Plain-English summary

The Committee was asked whether Rule 5.6(b) prevents defense counsel from insisting, as a settlement condition, that plaintiff's counsel refrain from disclosing publicly available information about the case. The short answer is that such a term violates Rule 5.6(b) if it would restrict plaintiff's counsel's right to practice or the public's right to identify and retain qualified counsel.

The opinion starts from Rule 1.2, which requires a lawyer to abide by the client's objectives, but reads it as limited by Rule 5.6(b), following ABA Formal Op. 93-371. It identifies three policy reasons behind Rule 5.6(b): preserving the public's access to experienced counsel, preventing defendants from "buying off" plaintiff's counsel, and avoiding conflicts between current and future clients. An outright ban on representing others against the same defendant plainly violates the rule.

The opinion then explains that indirect restrictions can also violate Rule 5.6(b). A term barring counsel from using information learned in the matter can impair representation of future clients and create conflicts, drawing on ABA Formal Op. 00-417. The Committee concludes Rule 5.6(b) reaches both direct and indirect restrictions. It distinguishes confidentiality clauses: a narrow agreement to keep the settlement's terms or existence confidential is generally permissible and consistent with the Rule 1.6 and Rule 1.9 confidentiality duties, but a clause barring disclosure of publicly available information crosses the line if it functions as a practice restriction.

In practice

The opinion concludes that Rule 5.6(b) forbids both a direct ban on future representation against the settling defendant and indirect restrictions, such as a bar on using information gained in the matter, that limit a lawyer's ability to represent future clients. It treats narrow confidentiality clauses covering the amount or existence of a settlement as generally permissible, consistent with the lawyer's Rule 1.6 and Rule 1.9 duties. On the specific question posed, it holds that a term restricting disclosure of publicly available case information violates Rule 5.6(b) when it would restrict the right to practice or the public's ability to find qualified counsel.

Common questions

Q: Can a settlement require plaintiff's counsel never to sue the same defendant again?

A: No. The opinion states that a settlement term banning counsel from representing other clients against the same settling defendant violates Rule 5.6(b).

Q: What about a clause that just bars using information learned in the case?

A: The opinion treats that as an impermissible indirect restriction. Following ABA Formal Op. 00-417, it concludes a bar on using such information can materially limit representation of future clients and violates Rule 5.6(b).

Q: Are confidentiality clauses in settlements ever allowed?

A: Yes, narrow ones. The opinion explains that a clause keeping the settlement's terms or existence confidential is generally permissible and consistent with the confidentiality duties in Rules 1.6 and 1.9.

Q: Can defense counsel bar plaintiff's lawyer from disclosing public information about the case?

A: Not if it restricts practice. The opinion's short answer is that such a term violates Rule 5.6(b) where it would restrict plaintiff's counsel's right to practice or the public's right to identify and retain qualified counsel.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets New Hampshire Rule 5.6(b) (restrictions on the right to practice in settlement of a client controversy), read against Rule 1.2 (scope of representation and a lawyer's duty to follow client objectives) and the confidentiality duties of Rule 1.6 and Rule 1.9(c). It relies heavily on ABA Formal Opinions 93-371 and 00-417 and surveys parallel guidance from Colorado, Florida, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, and Los Angeles County.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 5.6 / NH Rule 5.6(b) (restrictions on right to practice)
• MR 1.2 / NH Rule 1.2 (scope of representation)
• MR 1.6 / NH Rule 1.6 (confidentiality of information)
• MR 1.7 / NH Rule 1.7 (concurrent conflicts of interest)
• MR 1.9 / NH Rule 1.9 (duties to former clients)

Other opinions cited:

• ABA Formal Op. 93-371 (1993): restrictions on representing future clients
• ABA Formal Op. 00-417: settlement terms limiting use of information
• Colorado Bar Op. 92 (1993): practice restrictions in settlements
• Florida Bar Op. 02-2 / 04-2: confidentiality of settlement terms
• Vermont Bar Op. 95-11 (1995); New Mexico Op. 1985-5; N.Y. State Bar Op. 730 (2000); LACBA Formal Op. 512 (2004); North Carolina 2003 Formal Op. 9

See also

• ABA Formal Op. 93-371: Restrictions on the Right to Represent Clients in the Future
• ABA Formal Op. 00-417: Settlement Terms Limiting a Lawyer's Use of Information
• Colorado Bar Op. 92: Practice Restrictions in Settlement Agreements
• Alaska Bar Op. 2000-02: Confidential Settlements and Future Representation

Source

• Landing page: https://www.nhbar.org/ethics/opinion-2009-10-06
• Original PDF: https://nhba.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/14111508/2009-10-06-REFORMATTED-Settlement-Agreements-and-Restrictions-on-the-Right-to-Practice.pdf

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
NEW HAMPSHIRE BAR ASSOCIATION

           Settlement Agreements and Restrictions on the Right to Practice
                   Ethics Committee Advisory Opinion #2009-10/06

ABSTRACT:

Settlement agreements afford individuals the opportunity to resolve disputes quickly and with
finality in order to avoid the uncertainty and expense of litigation. Settlements typically are
private arrangements among disputing parties and, consequently, specific terms often are not
public to avoid disclosure of confidential information or facts that would negatively impact a
party. During the course of representation and, in particular, during settlement negotiations, an
attorney is obligated pursuant to Rule 1.2 to abide by the client’s objectives and decisions,
subject at all times to the Rules of Professional Conduct. One such rule is Rule 5.6(b), which
prohibits an attorney from “offering or making” a settlement agreement that restricts the
attorney’s “right to practice.”

ANNOTATIONS:

An attorney’s duties to a client during the settlement process are no different than those generally
imposed by the Rules of Professional Conduct throughout the attorney-client relationship.

Rule 5.6(b) precludes an attorney from offering or agreeing to a settlement agreement that
restricts an attorney’s right to practice.

A settlement agreement that seeks to impose a ban on an attorney’s ability to represent other
clients against the same settling defendant violates Rule 5.6(b).

Settlement agreements that impose restrictions on an attorney’s right to practice other than a ban
on the representation of other current or future clients still may violate Rule 5.6(b). For instance,
a settlement agreement that prohibits plaintiff’s counsel from using any information learned
during a current controversy, especially against the same defendant, may prevent the attorney
from representing future claimants in similar controversies, and an attorney who agrees to refrain
from using information gained during the representation may create a conflict of interest between
the interests of the current client and those of future clients with similar claims.

Rule 5.6(b) is intended to prohibit both direct and indirect restrictions in settlement agreements
on an attorney’s right to practice because that interpretation of the Rule serves the important
policy consideration of protecting the rights of non-settling clients to identify and hire qualified
counsel whose judgment and expertise remains free from restrictive, private settlement
arrangements.

Provisions in a settlement agreement that require an attorney to refrain from disclosing specific
settlement terms, such as the amount and existence of a settlement, are sufficiently narrow in
scope and arguably serve to protect otherwise private information from public disclosure, and in
most cases such provisions will not be an impermissible restriction on the right to practice under
Rule 5.6(b).

A settlement agreement that precludes an attorney from disclosing publicly available information
about a case violates Rule 5.6(b) if it would have the effect of restricting an attorney’s right to
practice or of limiting the public’s ability to identify qualified legal counsel.

QUESTION:

Does Rule 5.6(b) prevent an attorney representing a defendant in a civil suit from insisting in the
settlement of the suit that the attorney representing the plaintiff refrain from disclosing publicly
available information about the case?

SHORT ANSWER:

It would violate New Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 5.6(b) for defense counsel
to request, as a term of a settlement agreement, that plaintiff’s counsel refrain from disclosing
information concerning the suit that is public, if doing so would have the effect of restricting the
right of plaintiff’s counsel to practice law or the public’s right to identify and retain qualified
legal counsel.

ANALYSIS:

The process of reaching a mutually agreeable settlement of an ongoing controversy often
requires negotiations between opposing parties and their counsel. An attorney’s duties to a client
during the settlement process are no different than those generally imposed by the Rules of
Professional Conduct throughout the attorney-client relationship. For example, an attorney may
not counsel or assist a client to engage in conduct the attorney knows is criminal or fraudulent or
otherwise violates a Rule of Professional Conduct. In addition, Rule 1.2 (Scope of
Representation) requires an attorney to abide by a client’s decisions concerning the objectives of
representation. That obligation, however, does not permit the attorney to engage in conduct that
would violate another Rule of Professional Conduct.

During the process of resolving a client controversy, an attorney’s obligations to a client may
raise for consideration Rule 5.6 (Restrictions on Right to Practice). Rule 5.6(b) states:

A lawyer shall not participate in offering or making:

   b. an agreement in which a restriction on the lawyer’s right to practice is part of the
      settlement of a client controversy.

When interpreting the interplay between Rule 1.2 and Rule 5.6(b), the American Bar Association
Standing Committee on Ethics and Responsibility (“ABA”) concluded that Rule 1.2 must be read
as “limited by the provisions of Rule 5.6(b),” within the context of settlement negotiations. See
ABA Formal Op. 93-371 (1993). The ABA relied upon several policy considerations to support
the position that defense counsel could not offer as a settlement condition, nor could plaintiffs
counsel agree, to refrain from representing current and future clients against the same mass-tort
defendant. Such a condition would impose an impermissible restriction on the right of plaintiffs
counsel to practice under Rule 5.6(b). See id.

Policy Considerations Underlying Rule 5.6(b)

Formal Opinion 93-371 articulates three policy considerations underlying the Rule 5.6(b)
restriction on settlement agreements. First, allowing an attorney to enter into a settlement
agreement that limits an attorney’s right to practice restricts the public’s access to counsel who,
by virtue of specific knowledge and experience, may be the most qualified for such
representation. Second, a restriction on the right to practice may be motivated by an intent to
“buy off” counsel, rather than resolve the controversy. Third, a restriction on the right to practice
may place an attorney in a conflict position, pitting the objectives of a present client against the
interests of future clients. See id.; see also accord ABA Formal Op. 00-417; see generally,
Colorado Bar Assoc. Ethics Comm. Op. 92 (1993) (a settlement agreement should not be “a
facade for creating an actual or potential conflict of interest between the settling claimant’s
lawyer and his or her non-settling clients, present or future”); and Professional Ethics of the
Florida Bar, Op. 04-2 (2005) (citing the policy considerations set forth in ABA Formal Op. 93-
371 as part of its 5.6(b) analysis). These policies provide a framework for analyzing the propriety
of settlement restrictions which are distinguishable from, but instructive to, the inquiry before
this Committee.

Absolute Ban on Future Representation

A settlement agreement that seeks to impose a ban on an attorney’s ability to represent other
clients against the same settling defendant violates Rule 5.6(b). See generally ABA Formal Op.
93371. The Vermont Bar Association followed ABA Formal Opinion 93-371 and similarly
found that defense counsel could not propose a settlement term that would obligate plaintiff’s
counsel to decline to represent future clients against the same defendant. See Vermont Bar
Assoc. Advisory Ethics Op. 95-11 (1995) (citing ABA Formal Op. 93-371). A New Mexico
advisory opinion also concluded that it was impermissible for plaintiff’s counsel to agree to a
settlement condition in a prison riot case that would prevent plaintiff’s counsel from representing
other clients with claims arising out of the same incident. See New Mexico Advisory Op. 1985-5
(1985) (noting that close scrutiny should be given to the motivation for seeking a restrictive
settlement).

By prohibiting attorneys from offering or accepting a restriction on the representation of other
clients, Rule 5.6(b) protects the rights of as-yet unknown claimants by preventing defense
counsel from buying off plaintiff’s counsel, thus ensuring that settlement agreements do not
reduce the pool of experienced attorneys available to the public. See generally, ABA Formal
Opinion 93371.

Indirect Restrictions on Future Representation

Settlement agreements that impose restrictions on an attorney’s right to practice other than a ban
on the representation of other current or future clients still may violate Rule 5.6(b). For instance,
a settlement agreement that prohibits plaintiff’s counsel from using any information learned
during a current controversy, especially against the same defendant, may prevent the attorney
from representing future claimants in similar controversies. The ABA has opined that a bar on
the “use” of information gained during the course of a representation could materially limit an
attorney’s effective representation of future clients and, thus, impair the attorney’s ability to
provide competent and diligent representation. Consequently, a bar on the use of such
information would violate Rule 5.6(b). See ABA Formal Op. 00-417 (noting a client cannot
waive, under Rule 1.7(b), the obligation to provide competent and diligent representation).

In addition to violating Rule 5.6(b), restricting an attorney’s right to use information gained
during the representation of a client raises significant practical problems. It would be difficult, if
not impossible, for an attorney to compartmentalize or disregard all that has been learned during
such representation or recall with any precision when the information was obtained. As a result,
a bar on the use of information gained during a representation would expose an attorney to
potential violations of the settlement agreement in virtually every subsequent representation
involving similar legal or factual issues.

Moreover, an attorney who agrees to refrain from using information gained during the
representation may create a conflict of interest between the interests of the current client and
those of future clients with similar claims. See ABA Formal Opinion 00-417. To avoid a conflict
of interest as well as the risk of violating a ban on use, the safest approach might be for the
attorney to refrain from representing future clients whose controversies involve similar issues.
But adopting such an approach would be tantamount to agreeing to a ban on future
representation, which, as discussed, impermissibly limits the public’s access to attorneys who, by
virtue of knowledge and independent judgment, may be the most qualified choice. Id; see also
ABA Formal Op. 93-371 (the protection against conflicts between the interests of current and
future clients is a key policy consideration underlying Rule 5.6(b)).

Although not presented with a specific settlement provision to construe, the Colorado Bar
Association articulated its own test for evaluating settlement clauses under Rule 5.6(b). The issue
“is whether it [the agreement] would restrain a lawyer’s exercise of independent judgment on
behalf of other clients to an extent greater than that of an independent attorney not subject to
such a limitation.” See Colorado Bar Association Ethics Opinion 92 (alteration in original).
Building on prior opinions concerning the impermissibility of settlement agreements that
imposed direct restrictions on practice, the Colorado opinion states that settlement agreements
that indirectly serve to limit an attorney’s ability to diligently represent other clients also run the
risk of violating Rule 5.6(b).

A New Mexico Advisory Opinions Committee concluded that a settlement agreement that
required plaintiff’s counsel to surrender her entire file, including all attorney work product, to
defendant’s counsel for retention under seal constituted an impermissible restriction on the right
to practice and a violation of the New Mexico Code of Professional Responsibility. See New
Mexico Advisory Op. 1985-5. The Advisory Committee opined that if an attorney’s work
product would reveal similar strategies and weaknesses in future client cases, or if counsel could
not recreate and use certain work product, then requiring work product to be sealed in the hands
of opposing counsel as a condition of settlement would result in an impermissible, indirect bar on
the attorney’s ability to represent future clients. Id.

This Committee concludes that Rule 5.6(b) is intended to prohibit both direct and indirect
restrictions in settlement agreements on an attorney’s right to practice because that interpretation
of the Rule serves the important policy consideration of protecting the rights of non-settling
clients to identify and hire qualified counsel whose judgment and expertise remains free from
restrictive, private settlement arrangements. Furthermore, preserving the ability of attorneys to
utilize the legal experience and substantive knowledge gained during their practice in a manner
that does not risk materially limiting responsibilities to a client under Rule 1.7 (Conflicts of
Interest), nor disadvantage a former client under Rule 1.9 (Duties to Former Clients), deserves as
much protection under Rule 5.6(b) as does preserving the public’s right to choose the most
qualified legal counsel.

Restrictions on the Disclosure of Information

The inquiry before this Committee concerns the propriety of a settlement agreement, sought by
defense counsel, which restricts the right of plaintiffs counsel to disclose publicly available
information concerning the case. Circumstances may arise under which maintaining the
confidentiality of settlement terms or the mere existence of a settlement agreement is impossible,
particularly if a settlement requires court approval or the facts involved have become public.
Absent such circumstances, it is not uncommon for the parties to condition a settlement upon the
mutual agreement of parties and their counsel to refrain from disclosing certain information in
which the parties have a privacy interest.

Restrictions on Disclosure of Confidential Information Concerning a Settlement

Rule 5.6(b) precludes an attorney from offering or agreeing to a settlement agreement that
restricts an attorney’s right to practice. The rule is silent, however, with respect to an agreement
that prohibits the disclosure of information about specific settlement terms or facts about the
case. Nevertheless, it is well recognized that a settlement agreement may require parties and their
counsel to preserve some level of confidentiality relating to the settlement. The ABA has
concluded that offering or agreeing to condition a settlement upon an attorney’s non-disclosure
of particular information, like “the facts of the particular matter or the terms of the settlement[,]”
does not violate Rule 5.6(b). See ABA Formal Op. 00-417 (alteration in original) (citing
Colorado Bar Ethics Comm. Op. No. 92). In fact, a settlement agreement barring an attorney
from disclosing information relating to the representation of a client is consistent with the
general duty of confidentiality imposed during the attorney-client relationship under Rule 1.6,1
which duty survives termination of the attorney-client relationship and is separately reinforced
under Rule 1.9(c)(2).2 See generally North Carolina 2003 Formal Ethics Op. 9.

Several states concur with the ABA’s position that a settlement agreement may be conditioned
upon the non-disclosure of certain information relating to the settlement. For instance, a
settlement agreement restricting an attorney’s ability to disclose information regarding the
settlement itself and the terms of a release in a securities case, to all but specific individuals and
government agencies, was found to be permissible under Florida’s version of Rule 5.6(b). See
Florida Ethics Op. 02-2 (2005). The Florida Ethics Committee commented on the limited nature
of the confidentiality clause being upheld, noting that it “makes only the terms of the settlement
and release itself confidential [and][s]uch confidentiality clauses have typically been determined
not to violate ethics rules.” Id. (alteration in original) (citing New Mexico Op. 1985-5 and
Colorado Op. 92); accord Los Angeles County Bar Assoc. Formal Op. 512 (2004) (taking
guidance from ABA Formal Op. 00-417 to find that a settlement agreement prohibiting the
disclosure of the fact or amount of settlement did not restrict an attorney’s right to practice); see
also generally N.Y. St. Bar Assoc. Comm. on Professional Ethics Op. 730 (2000)
(acknowledging that, subject to limited exceptions, confidentiality provisions that restrict parties
and counsel from disclosing terms of a settlement are “common” and generally permissible). The
North Carolina State Bar similarly upheld a narrowly crafted confidentiality clause that restricted
an attorney’s disclosure of the terms of a settlement agreement without restricting the use of
information gained during the representation. See North Carolina 2003 Formal Ethics Op. 9
(citing ABA Opinion 00-417).3

Taking guidance from the ABA and state ethics opinions, this Committee concurs that provisions
in a settlement agreement that require an attorney to refrain from disclosing specific settlement
terms, such as the amount and existence of a settlement, are sufficiently narrow in scope and
arguably serve to protect otherwise private information from public disclosure. In most cases, a
narrowly drawn settlement agreement that limits the disclosure of specific information in which
the parties or a party has a privacy interest will not be an impermissible restriction on the right to
practice under Rule 5.6(b).

Restrictions on the Disclosure of Public Information

The question presented to this Committee, however, is whether defense counsel may seek to
condition a settlement upon opposing counsel’s agreement to forego disclosure of publicly
available information about the case. Such a settlement agreement is more expansive than the
narrower restrictions that traditionally have been permissible under Rule 5.6(b). Unlike a more
narrowly drawn settlement agreement that precludes an attorney from disclosing confidential
information to avoid potential adverse effects resulting from disclosure, a provision that restricts
an attorney’s right to disclose public information concerning a case might well violate Rule
5.6(b).

As discussed, Rule 5.6(b) protects against overly restrictive settlement agreements that are
motivated by a desire to restrict or restrain opposing counsel’s ability to represent other clients.
A settlement agreement sought by defense counsel that requires plaintiffs counsel to refrain from
disclosing public information might well result in limiting an attorney’s ability to disclose his or
her expertise, thus limiting the public’s ability to identify and obtain the most qualified counsel.
Conversely, some non-disclosure agreements concerning public information likely would not
result in an impermissible restriction on an attorney’s right to practice due to the nature of the
information to be protected. One example would be a settlement agreement that bars plaintiff’s
counsel from disclosing that a company has been sued “x” times, which information is part of
public court filings. This restriction does not violate Rule 5.6(b) because the restricted
information – the number of times the company has been sued – does not impair the attorney’s
ability to effectively represent future clients or the ability of potential clients to identify
experienced counsel.

On the other hand, an agreement that precludes plaintiff’s counsel from disclosing, for example,
a published epidemiological study that resulted in a defendant drug company changing its
published warnings concerning a drug, would violate Rule 5.6(b) because it prohibits plaintiff’s
counsel from discussing the study during the representation of future clients with claims against
the same drug company. Similarly, an agreement that restricts an attorney’s ability to disclose the
fact that the attorney had previously sued the drug company also would violate the Rule because
it would impermissibly limit the public’s ability to identify the most experienced counsel for
representation.

Accordingly, in the absence of countervailing considerations such as those described above, this
Committee finds that if a settlement agreement that precludes plaintiff’s counsel from disclosing
publicly available information about a case would have the effect of restricting an attorney’s
right to practice or of limiting the public’s ability to identify qualified legal counsel, then the
settlement agreement would be a violation of Rule 5.6(b).

ENDNOTES:

[1] “A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the
client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the
representation, or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b).” N.H. Rules of Professional
Conduct, Rule 1.6(a).

[2] “A lawyer who has formerly represented a client in a matter or whose present or former firm
has formerly represented a client in a matter shall not thereafter: … (2) reveal information
relating to the representation except as the Rules would permit or require with respect to a
client.” N.H. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.9(c)(2).

[3] The committee went on to note that the provision at issue, e.g., requiring confidentiality of
the essence of a settlement agreement and its underlying terms, is consistent with a lawyer’s
duties not to reveal confidential information under Rule 1.6 and 1.9(c).

NH RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT:

Rule 1.2
Rule 1.6
Rule 1.7
Rule 1.9
Rule 5.6

SUBJECTS:

Allocation of Authority between Client and Lawyer
Confidentiality of Information
Conflicts of Interest
Duties to Former Clients
Restrictions on Right to Practice

• By the NHBA Ethics Committee
This opinion was submitted for publication to the NHBA Board of Governors.