Can a New Hampshire lawyer disclose confidential information over a client's objection to protect the client from elder abuse or other serious bodily harm?

Plain-English summary

The opinion addresses a recurring problem for lawyers representing elderly clients: the client is threatened by elder abuse or other serious harm, often by a family member, but refuses to authorize the lawyer to disclose information needed to get help. The question is whether the lawyer may disclose confidential information over the client's objection.

The opinion analyzes the situation first under Rule 1.14 (client with diminished capacity). When the lawyer reasonably believes the client has diminished capacity, is at risk of substantial physical, financial, or other harm, and cannot adequately act in the client's own interest, Rule 1.14(b) allows reasonably necessary protective action, including consulting with persons or entities able to help and, in appropriate cases, seeking a guardian or conservator. Rule 1.14(c) makes information about such a client confidential under Rule 1.6 but impliedly authorizes the lawyer to reveal it when taking protective action, only to the extent reasonably necessary. The opinion notes neither the New Hampshire nor the Model Rules define "diminished capacity" and the lawyer must assess the client's capacity.

The opinion also looks to Rule 1.6(b)(1), which permits disclosure to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm. Together, these rules can authorize disclosure to protect a client facing abuse even when the client objects, provided the threshold of harm and the limits on the scope of disclosure are observed.

In practice

The opinion concludes that, under the New Hampshire Rules as they stood when it issued, a lawyer may take protective action for a client at risk of elder abuse or substantial bodily harm, including limited disclosure of confidential information, when the Rule 1.14(b) conditions are met (reasonable belief of diminished capacity, risk of substantial harm, and inability to act) or when Rule 1.6(b)(1) applies (preventing reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm). It stresses that any disclosure is impliedly authorized only to the extent reasonably necessary to protect the client's interests, and that the lawyer should otherwise maintain a normal client-lawyer relationship as far as reasonably possible.

Common questions

Q: Can a New Hampshire lawyer reveal client information to protect an elderly client being abused, even if the client says no?

A: Yes, within limits. The opinion concludes Rules 1.6(b)(1) and 1.14(b)-(c) may authorize disclosure over the client's objection where there is sufficient evidence of harm and the client cannot or will not consent.

Q: What conditions must be met before a lawyer takes protective action under Rule 1.14?

A: The opinion states the lawyer must reasonably believe the client has diminished capacity, is at risk of substantial physical, financial, or other harm unless action is taken, and cannot adequately act in the client's own interest.

Q: How much may the lawyer disclose?

A: Only what is reasonably necessary. The opinion emphasizes that Rule 1.14(c) impliedly authorizes revealing information only to the extent reasonably necessary to protect the client's interests.

Q: Does the lawyer still owe the client a normal relationship?

A: Yes, as far as possible. The opinion notes that under Rule 1.14(a) the lawyer shall, as far as reasonably possible, maintain a normal client-lawyer relationship with a client whose capacity is diminished.

Background and rules framework

The opinion interprets New Hampshire Rule 1.14 (client with diminished capacity), quoting paragraphs (a) through (c), together with the confidentiality rule, Rule 1.6, and its exception in Rule 1.6(b)(1) for preventing reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm. It draws on commentary regarding the assessment of a client's mental capacity and on the work of the National Center on Elder Abuse describing the categories and prevalence of elder abuse.

Citations and references

Rules of Professional Conduct:

• MR 1.14 / NH Rule 1.14(b), (c) (client with diminished capacity; protective action)
• MR 1.6 / NH Rule 1.6(b)(1) (confidentiality; exception to prevent death or substantial bodily harm)

Other references:

• National Center on Elder Abuse, categories and prevalence of elder abuse
• Rotunda & Dzienkowski, Legal Ethics treatise, on assessing a client's mental capacity

See also

• Colorado Bar Op. 126: Representing the Adult Client With Diminished Capacity
• California Bar Op. 2021-207: Lawyer for a Client With Diminished Capacity
• Kentucky Bar Op. E-439: Duties When an Elderly or Special Needs Person Is Abused or Exploited

Source

• Landing page: https://www.nhbar.org/ethics/opinion-2014-15-05

Original opinion text

Reproduced from the official source for research purposes. The linked source is authoritative.
New Hampshire Bar Association
The Lawyer’s Authority to Disclose Confidential Client information to Protect a Client
from Elder Abuse or Other Threats of Substantial Bodily Harm
Ethics Committee Advisory Opinion #2014-15/05

ABSTRACT:
Rules 1.6(b) (1) and 1.14(b-c) may authorize an attorney to take protective action on behalf of a
client, including disclosing confidential client information if necessary, when sufficient evidence
of actual or threatened harm to the client exists, and when the client either cannot, or refuses to,
provide informed consent for disclosure.
ANNOTATIONS:
A lawyer shall, as far as reasonably possible, maintain a normal client-lawyer relationship with
the client when the client’s capacity to make adequately considered decisions in connection with
a representation is diminished.
A lawyer may take reasonably necessary protective action when the lawyer reasonably believes
that the client has diminished capacity, is at risk of substantial physical, financial or other harm
unless action is taken and cannot adequately act in the client’s own interest.
Information relating to the representation of a client with diminished capacity is protected by
Rule 1.6.
A lawyer is impliedly authorized to reveal confidential client information when taking protective
action, but only to the extent reasonably necessary to protect the client’s interests.
OPINION
Issue Presented:
Can an Attorney Disclose Confidential Client Information, Over a Client’s Objection, to Protect
the Client from Elder Abuse or Other Threats of Substantial Bodily Injury?1
Factual Background:
Lawyers representing the elderly frequently encounter problems that require more than purely
legal solutions, and that are better handled with the assistance of specialists from other fields.
While this can happen with clients of all ages, the elderly client will frequently suffer from
mental impairments such as depression, dementia and Alzheimer’s disease. The medical
problems and loss of mental acuity that can accompany old age also can undermine the client’s
ability to work with his or her attorney to assess situations and make decisions that are in the
client’s own best interests.
In addition to the natural processes of deterioration that will occur at some point in the aging
process, elder abuse is an increasingly well-documented phenomenon in the lives of older people
from all demographic and economic backgrounds2. The National Center on Elder Abuse
(“National Center”)3 defines several categories of elder abuse: physical abuse, sexual abuse,
psychological abuse, financial exploitation, caretaker neglect, self-neglect and abandonment.4
Abused elders experience poorer health and shorter life expectancies than those who are not
victimized. In extreme cases of neglect, self-neglect and abandonment, fatal illnesses can result.
The National Center also reports that “in almost 90 percent of the elder abuse and neglect
incidents with a known perpetrator, the perpetrator is a family member, and two-thirds of the
perpetrators are adult children or spouses”.5 When family members are involved, victims are
frequently reluctant to disclose the problem or seek help from third parties outside of the
attorney-client relationship. They are not prepared to subject themselves or their families to the
humiliation and loss of privacy that outside attention might bring. They are also afraid to face the
unknown consequences that can stem from disclosure to third parties, which could include
placement in nursing homes, separation of couples and general loss of control over the final
years of their lives.
Medical and mental health professionals, social workers and geriatric care managers are better
qualified than most lawyers to recognize and assess the significance of adverse physical and
mental conditions–including injurious home environments–that old age can bring. They will also
typically be better informed of the range of resources and treatment options that are available.
Elder law attorneys recognize their limitations, and will look for opportunities, with the informed
consent of their clients, to access multidisciplinary services for elderly clients.6 In cases of
family-based elder abuse, however, the client will frequently object to the disclosure of
information necessary to secure assistance from parties outside of the attorney-client
relationship.
This leads to the ethical question underlying this opinion: whether an attorney can disclose
confidential client information, over the client’s objection, to secure assistance for a client who is
threatened by ongoing elder abuse or other forms of substantial bodily injury.
Analysis Under Rule of Professional Conduct 1.14 (Client with Diminished Capacity)
In some cases–although certainly not always–a client who refuses to authorize the disclosure of
confidential information even when disclosure is necessary to protect the client from abuse by a
third party may be manifesting a “diminished capacity” to appreciate the full significance of the
threats he or she faces; or to render well-considered decisions regarding the best course to
follow.
If the client is acting with diminished capacity, Rule 1.14 modifies some of the ethical rules
applicable to the attorney-client relationship so as to give the attorney greater latitude than might
otherwise be the case to protect the interests of the client. These modifications include, under
certain circumstances, relaxation of the rigorous duty of confidentiality an attorney traditionally
owes to his or her client.
New Hampshire’s Diminished Capacity rule is set forth below:
• Rule 1.14: Client with Diminished Capacity
 a. When a client’s capacity to make adequately considered decisions in connection
with a representation is diminished, whether because of minority, mental
impairment or for some other reason, the lawyer shall, as far as reasonably
possible, maintain a normal client-lawyer relationship with the client.
b. When the lawyer reasonably believes that the client has diminished capacity, is at
risk of substantial physical, financial or other harm unless action is taken and
cannot adequately act in the client’s own interest, the lawyer may take reasonably
necessary protective action, including consulting with individuals or entities that
have the ability to take action to protect the client and, in appropriate cases,
seeking the appointment of a guardian ad litem, conservator or guardian.
c. Information relating to the representation of a client with diminished capacity is
protected by Rule 1.6. When taking protective action pursuant to paragraph (b),
the lawyer is impliedly authorized under Rule 1.6(a) to reveal information about
the client, but only to the extent reasonably necessary to protect the client’s
interests.
(Emphasis added).
New Hampshire’s rules do not define “diminished capacity”; nor do the ABA Model Rules of
Professional Conduct. However, “(w)hen a diminished capacity results from mental impairment,
the lawyer must make an assessment of the client’s mental capacity”, Rotunda and Dzienkowski,
Legal Ethics: The Lawyer’s Deskbook on Professional Responsibility, Section 1.14-1 at pp. 657-
658; and Comment 6 to ABA Model Rule 1.14 identifies factors that will be important in an
assessment of diminished capacity:
• In determining the extent of the client’s diminished capacity, the lawyer should consider
and balance such factors as: the client’s ability to articulate reasoning leading to a
decision; variability of state of mind and ability to appreciate consequences of a decision;
and the consistency of a decision with the known long-term commitments and values of
the client. In appropriate circumstances, the lawyer may seek guidance from an
appropriate diagnostician.
If, through consideration of these or other factors, the lawyer concludes that his or her client has
diminished capacity, it is clear that Rule 1.14 relaxes an attorney’s ethical duty to protect client
confidentiality. More specifically, Rule 1.14(c) confirms the continuing application of the basic
confidentiality rule, Rule 1.6, to information relating to the representation. However, this
subsection goes on to say that when dealing with a client with diminished capacity, an attorney
will be “impliedly authorized”, under Rule 1.6(a), to disclose confidential client information “to
the extent reasonably necessary to protect the client’s interests.” Rule 1.14 (c). As noted above,
elderly clients may be incapacitated by conditions such as severe anxiety, depression, dementia,
or Alzheimer’s disease–any of which may erode the client’s ability to make independent
decisions regarding how best to protect their own welfare in the face of elder abuse. If the mental
impairment resulting from such conditions rises to the level of “diminished capacity”, and the
client is at “risk of substantial physical, financial or other harm unless action is taken…”, Rule
1.14(b), the lawyer may make careful and limited disclosures of confidential client information
in order to protect the client.
This conclusion is supported, we believe, by ethics opinions is several other jurisdictions that
have applied Rule 1.14 in analyzing a lawyer’s confidentiality obligation in connection with a
client’s threat to commit suicide. See Alaska Bar Assoc. Ethics Op. No. 2005-1 (“(U)nder ARCP
1.14, the attorney may disclose the client’s stated intent to commit suicide to the proper
authorities [e.g., the court, appropriate mental health professionals, or appropriate detention
facility personnel] irrespective of the client’s custodial status, but is not required to do so.”);
Massachusetts Ethics Op 01-2 (2001)(“A lawyer may notify family members, adult protective
agencies, the police, or the client’s doctors to prevent the threatened suicide of a client if the
lawyer reasonably believes that the suicide threat is real and that the client is suffering from
some mental disorder or disability that prevents him from making a rational decision about
whether to continue living.”); CT Ethics Op. 00-5, 2000 (Under Rule 1.14, “a lawyer, without the
client’s consent, may disclose the client’s intent to commit suicide in order to prevent it.”); SC
Ethics Opinion 99-12 (similar result).
The confidentiality obligation of Rule 1.6 is not, however, the only concern faced by an attorney
considering disclosure of confidential client information to protect a client. For example, while
the final sentence of ABA Comment 6 to Model Rule 1.14 (set forth above) would appear to
allow consultation with outside specialists without first securing the informed consent of the
client, the comment does not address the potential waiver of confidentiality protections–
including most importantly the attorney-client privilege–that could result from the participation
of an outside health care provider.
More important, if the client or lawyer discusses ongoing elder abuse during consultations with
an outside specialist, the information may trigger a reporting obligation that does not apply to the
attorney.7 A report to law enforcement, of course, may be a consequence that the client
vehemently opposes. It may also result in an involuntary change in living arrangements,
guardianship and even the arrest and prosecution of a close family member. These steps may
protect the client, but there may also be less draconian measures that provide similar protection
with less disruption. Before bringing third parties into the situation, therefore, the attorney should
attempt to determine whether reporting obligations will be triggered, or whether the attorney-
client privilege will be waived.8
In sum, when “diminished capacity” exists, Rules 1.14(b) and (c) allow a lawyer to use or
disclose confidential client information, without a client’s consent, “to the extent reasonably
necessary” to protect the client from elder abuse or other threatened substantial injury bodily.
Diminished capacity will not, however, exist in all or even most cases. For example, a client’s
bad decisions do not amount to “diminished capacity” that allows a lawyer to intervene. “A
client’s poor judgment does not suffice to warrant “protective action” under Rule 1.14(b).” ABA
Formal Opinion 96-404 (1996). Well recognized ethics authorities have expressed this caution as
follows: “(Rule 1.14) does not give the lawyer carte blanche to impose on the client the lawyer’s
personal view of what is in the client’s best interest. Rather, Rule 1.14 authorizes the lawyer to
engage in a limited intervention when the client’s mental incapacity is such that he or she cannot
adequately protect his or her own interests.” Rotunda & Dzienkowski, supra at pp. 658-659.
(Emphasis added.)
Because all consequences of unauthorized disclosure of confidential client information cannot be
foreseen or controlled by the lawyer, a determination of “diminished capacity” must be made
with great care.
Analysis under Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6 (Confidentiality of Information)
This leaves for discussion the lawyer’s authority to use or disclose confidential client
information, over the client’s objection, to protect the client from threatened and substantial
bodily harm when diminished capacity does not exist. Rule 1.6 provides the analytical
framework for this issue. Relevant parts of the rule are set forth below:
• Rule 1.6: Confidentiality of Information
a. 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).
b. A lawyer may reveal such information to the extent reasonably necessary:
1. to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm….

Rule 1.6(a), which encompasses not just attorney-client communications but all “information
relating to the representation”, mandates sweeping protection for confidential client information.9
Citing commentary to both the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct and the New
Hampshire Rules of Professional Conduct, the New Hampshire’s Supreme Court, in Lane’s
Case, 153 N.H. 10 (2005), noted that the confidentiality interests protected by Rule 1.6 “serve[]
as the foundation of the attorney-client relationship”; and that such protection encourages clients
to communicate fully and frankly with the attorney even as to embarrassing or legally damaging
subject matter”. Lane’s Case, supra, at 21 “Thus, ‘the disclosure of client confidences is an
extreme and irrevocable act.'” Id., citing NHRPC 1.6, N.H. cmt. (2005).
There are exceptions to this broad mandate of client confidentiality. Two of these exceptions,
found in Rule 1.6(a), are disclosure with a client’s “informed consent” (not relevant to the
present opinion), and disclosure “impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation”
(relevant to the present opinion only in circumstances involving a client’s diminished capacity,
see Rule 1.14[c]). Three additional exceptions found in NHRPC 1.6(b)(2-4) are for disclosures
“to secure legal advice”10; disclosures to establish a claim or defense in attorney/client
controversies or to defend against claims or allegations made in criminal or civil litigation or
“any proceeding concerning the lawyer’s representation of the client”; and disclosures “to
comply with other law or court order”.11 These also do not provide authorization to disclose elder
abuse over the client’s objection.
This leaves the confidentiality exception set forth at Rule 1.6(b)(1):
 a. A lawyer may reveal such information to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes
necessary
1. to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm12 or to prevent the
client from committing a criminal act that the lawyer believes is likely to result in
substantial injury to the financial interest or property of another.
As explained in comments to the ABA model rule, the 1.6(b) (1) exception “recognizes the
overriding value of life and physical integrity and permits disclosure reasonably necessary to
prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm. Such harm is reasonably certain to
occur if it will be suffered imminently or if there is a present and substantial threat that a person
will suffer such harm at a later date if the lawyer fails to take action necessary to eliminate the
threat.” ABA Model Rule 1.6, cmt.6.
The Restatement of the Law Governing Lawyers elaborates on the overriding importance placed
on life and “physical integrity” that supports the exception for disclosures necessary to prevent
reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm:
• Threats to life or body encompassed within (Section 66 of the Restatement) may be the
product of an act of the client or a non-client and may be created by wrongful acts, by
accident, or by circumstances. (citation omitted). In all such events, the ultimate threat is
the same, and its existence suffices to warrant a lawyer’s taking corrective steps to
prevent the threatened death or serious bodily harm. Restatement at Section 66, Comment
b, p.496.

• So long as the predicate threat to life or body exists, discretion (to use or disclose
confidential information) exists notwithstanding that …the lawyer’s information comes
from otherwise privileged conversations. Restatement at Section 66, Comment c, p. 498.
Mere suspicion that elder abuse or other forms of harm might be occurring is not adequate to
trigger this exception. A lawyer can act under this exception only based on “reasonable belief”,
defined in the Terminology Section of New Hampshire’s rules as existing when “…the lawyer
believes the matter in question and the circumstances are such that the belief is reasonable”,
NHRPC 1.0(i). The definition, which requires both subjective and objective inquiries, was
discussed by the dissent in Lane’s Case, supra at 25: “The lawyer must ‘actually suppose [the
matter in question] to be true’ and the circumstances must be such that the belief is reasonable.”
(Citations omitted.) There must be sufficient evidence (bruises, personality change,
manifestations of fear or trepidation, eye witness statements or statements by the client) to lead
to an actual supposition that the client is being abused physically or psychologically or
threatened with such abuse.
Further, the attorney should seek consent from the client directly, and if possible in person,
before acting on the attorney’s belief that elder abuse and substantial physical harm is occurring
or threatened. Not only is it possible that this discussion will provide more evidence regarding
whether risks to the client are real. The discussion will also provide an opportunity to underscore
the support the client will receive from the attorney, other professionals and reliable family
members if consent is given to disclosure.
The Committee has noted that the threatened harm at issue in situations of elder client abuse is
different than the harm typically encountered under NHRPC 1.6(b)(1), in which the disclosures
are typically undertaken when the attorney’s client, not a third party, threatens death, substantial
bodily harm or substantial financial or property damage to another. This distinction does not
affect the analysis. Client consent for the disclosure must still be sought. And even if the client
continues to object to disclosure of the elder abuse–in family-based situations for example–the
attorney will almost always gain information from the discussion that informs his or her
judgment regarding whether to proceed with disclosure over the client’s objection.
In sum, Rule 1.6(b) (1)–even in the absence of diminished capacity–may also authorize an
attorney to use or disclose confidential client information, over the client’s objections, in order to
prevent substantial harm to the client from occurring or continuing.
CONCLUSION:
An attorney must always proceed with thoughtful, cautious analysis in deciding to reveal a
client’s confidences. However, when sufficient evidence of actual or threatened harm to the
client exists, and when the client either cannot, or refuses to, provide informed consent for
disclosure, Rules 1.6(b) (1) and 1.14(b-c) may authorize the attorney, after considering other less
irrevocable options, to take protective action on behalf of the client even when the disclosure of
confidential client information is necessary during the process.
ENDNOTES:
[1] This Opinion arises from an inquiry to the Ethics Committee that focused on elder abuse; the
Opinion therefore uses elder abuse as one of the factual underpinnings for the analysis. However,
the same analytical framework would apply whenever a client faces the risk of substantial harm
and refuses to authorize his or her lawyer to disclose confidential information as necessary to
protect the client.
[2] See generally, Fisher, Elder Abuse: A Private Problem That Requires Private Solutions, 8 J.
Health & Biomedical L. 81 (Suffolk Law School 2012).
[3] he website for the National Center is ncea.acl.gov.
[4] See Major Types of Elder Abuse, www.ncea.aoa.gov in the FAQ section.
[5] The National Elder Abuse Incidence Study: Final Report at 1 (1998), cited at Fischer, supra,
at p.103, n. 155.
[6] See generally Wydra, Keeping Secrets within the Team: Maintaining Client Confidentiality
while Offering Interdisciplinary Services to the Elderly Client, 62 Fordham Law Review 1517
(1994)(arguing that the need for interdisciplinary services for elderly clients should be facilitated
by enacting modifications to ethical [primarily confidentiality] rules that hinder interdisciplinary
consultations.
[7] See discussion of New Hampshire’s elder abuse reporting statute, RSA 161-F:46, in n. 11
herein.
[8] Comment 3 to ABA model rule 1.14 raises some of the same concerns. It encourages the
involvement of “family members or other persons” to assist in discussions between the attorney
and client if the client requests their involvement; and concludes without supporting authority
that “the presence of such persons generally does not affect the applicability of the attorney-
client evidentiary privilege”. This Committee has previously raised a red flag in connection with
the reliability of the ABA’s assurance regarding the attorney-client privilege. Rather, the
Committee has admonished New Hampshire lawyers to make their own determination regarding
whether the privilege would be waived as a result of the involvement of family members or
others. See Comment No. 1, Ethics Committee Comments to Rule 1.14.
[9] The Committee assumes, for purposes of this analysis, that the information regarding elder
abuse or other form of threatened and substantial bodily harm is “confidential information
relating to the representation” that is protected by Rule 1.6(a).
[10] Rule 1.6(b)(2) authorizes an attorney to discuss the elder abuse with lawyer’s outside of
their firm to secure legal advice regarding actions the lawyer may take within the constraints of
the rules of professional conduct. The exception provides no support, however, for disclosures to
programs that may provide specialized assistance, such as the NH Bureau of Elderly and Adult
Services, the NH Adult Protection Program, or the NH Long Term Care Ombudsman’s office; or
to family members or others who might assist in investigating or responding to suspected elder
abuse.
[11] New Hampshire has enacted legislation mandating reports of “adult abuse” by “any person,
including, but not limited to, physicians, other health care professionals, social workers, clergy,
and law enforcement officials”. RSA 161-F:46. However, this mandatory reporting provision is
limited by RSA 161-F:48, which reads:
• Abrogation of Privileged Communication. The privileged quality of communication
between husband and wife and any professional person and his patient or client, except
that between attorney and client, shall not apply to any proceedings instituted pursuant to
this subdivision and shall not constitute grounds for failure to report as required by this
subdivision. (Emphasis added.)
Stated alternatively, the confidentiality obligation imposed on lawyers by the attorney-client
privilege trumps the RSA 161-F:46 reporting obligation. As discussed previously, the
confidentiality obligation mandated by Rule 1.6, which applies to all “information relating to the
representation”, provides greater protection than the common law attorney-client privilege. This
would allow an argument that the statutory reporting obligation would require an attorney to
disclose confidential information about the representation that falls beyond the scope of the
attorney-client privilege. The legislation is, however, not clear on this point and the Supreme
Court has provided no guidance on the issue. Further, a lawyer seeking to justify the disclosure
of confidential client information over the client’s objection will have the burden of proving the
application of any exception to the general confidentiality rule. See Lane’s Case, 153 N.H.10 at
21 (2005). Under these circumstances, we conclude that the exception found in RSA 161-F:48 is
intended to protect the full scope of confidential information relating to a client’s representation.
[12] “Substantial bodily harm” is not defined further in the ABA model Rules or New
Hampshire’s rules. Comment (c) to Section 66 of the Restatement of the Law Governing
Lawyers, (which uses the phrase “serious bodily harm” rather than “substantial bodily harm”),
contains the following definition:
• Serious bodily harm within the meaning of this Section includes life threatening illness
and injuries, and the consequences of events such as imprisonment for a substantial
period and child sexual abuse. It also includes a client’s threat of suicide.
[13] “A threat within (Section 66[1] of the Restatement) need not be the product of a client act;
an act of a non-client threatening life or personal safety is also included.”

NH RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT:
Rule 1.14
Rule 1.6

NH ETHICS COMMITTEE OPINIONS AND ARTICLES:

SUBJECTS:
Client with Diminished Capacity
Confidentiality
• By the NHBA Ethics Committee
This opinion was submitted for publication to the NHBA Board of Governors meeting
and was published in Bar News on January 21, 2015.